From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ken Dreyer Subject: Re: Breaks & Replaces in debian/control in backports Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:47:43 -0600 Message-ID: <55AFC92F.60101@redhat.com> References: <55AB89C4.50503@dachary.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:51631 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934322AbbGVQro (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jul 2015 12:47:44 -0400 In-Reply-To: <55AB89C4.50503@dachary.org> Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Loic Dachary Cc: Ceph Development On 07/19/2015 05:28 AM, Loic Dachary wrote: > I think it achieves the same thing and is less error prone in the case of backports. The risk is that upgrading from v0.94.2-34 to the version with this change will fail because the conditions are satisified (it thinks all versions after v0.94.2 have the change). But the odds of having a test machine with this specific version already installed are close to non-existent. The odds of us picking the wrong number and ending up with something that's either too high or too small are higher. > > What do you think ? > I think this is great, thanks for proposing it. We should also write our convention down someplace (SubmittingPatches, or the wiki, or something) - Ken