[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: ambiguity in the guidelines



On 7/5/06, seth vidal <skvidal linux duke edu> wrote:
Let's be clear about what's going on here:
1. I do not think it is an appropriate to overload the field
2. I do not wish to take part in that particular dirtiness
3. until today no one has questioned the desire for correctness on my
part
4. I'm not asking anyone else to do what I'm doing - I'm just trying to
do what I think is most correct and appropriate given the technology
available.

Okay, but you have not explained _why_ adding version information to
this field is "overloading" it.

How does this affect anything?  You have not given any reason to not
include version information other than the name of the field which if
I recall from this thread is called "changelogname".

So why is this important to not include version information in this
field?  Why is it important that this field only contain date,
packager name and email?  Is there some technical reason why this
field should only contain this particular data?

What if we called the field "changeloginfo" rather than
"changelogname" or whatever it is called now? Would this change things
in your mind?


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]