[pkg-go] consul

[Dmitry Smirnov]

On Mon, 7 Mar 2016 02:10:48 PM Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:06 PM, Dmitry Smirnov <onlyjob at debian.org> wrote:
> > Why do you like "~dfsg" more than "+dfsg"?
> 
> Ahha! Because I've been burned by this before, hilariously!
> 
> Since sometimes this is a mistake -- and if often is -- when they fix it,
> they re-post the same version with a new tarball (eww!), but this means I
> can re-upload a 1.0. If you have a +dfsg, you would need to do a
> 1.0+dfsg1.notreally-1, rather than a 1.0, which is unfortunate

Thanks. :) I suppose it could be handy when something irrelevant is shipped 
in orig.tar. After all "~dfsg" can be changed for "+dfsg" but not the other 
way, at least not after upload...


> It's cosmetic, sure, but it has come in handy a few times :)

Makes sense, thank you. I haven't seen such case yet.


> FWIW, I don't reject packages out of the blue, this was a friendly reject,
> not a "kthxbye" reject.

I'm not blaming you, Paul. :)
Tianon asked you to reject and he is the maintainer.


> Routine rejects like this are for the maintainer's
> benefit, to quickly change a thing, rather than there was a problem.
> 
> Please don't think I rejected it because tianon or I thought there was an
> issue with it that prevented it from being in main, it was a "well, it's
> not in Debian, so let's just fix it right quick" type thing.

I understand and agree that fix-n-reupload thing makes sense.

Though IMHO on this instance there is nothing to fix.
Just Tianon being a bit territorial and me being impatient... :)

-- 
All the best,
 Dmitry Smirnov.

---

Believing is easier than thinking. Hence so many more believers than
thinkers.
        -- Bruce Calvert
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-go-maintainers/attachments/20160308/a233e6dc/attachment.sig>