| 1 |
William Hubbs posted on Fri, 30 Jan 2015 16:22:38 -0600 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> this is covered in the nfs-utils-1.3.1-r1 ebuild by ewarns; however, qa |
| 4 |
> asked me to write a news item as well, so here it is. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Let me know what you think. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Thanks, |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> William |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Title: nfsmount service renamed nfsclient |
| 13 |
> Author: William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> |
| 14 |
> Content-Type: text/plain |
| 15 |
> Posted: 2015-02-02 |
| 16 |
> Revision: 2 |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Repeating a comment I've seen for other news items: |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
The Revision header is intended for machine-parsing use AFTER original |
| 21 |
release, in case an earlier release needed corrected and thus a revision |
| 22 |
other than 1. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
As such, it should always be Revision: 1 when first released, and thus |
| 25 |
for all pre-release review postings, unless there has actually been a |
| 26 |
previous release and the review posting is actually reviewing a |
| 27 |
correction-revision of a previously released news item found to be in |
| 28 |
actual need of revision after release. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
For those familiar with the news and mail header RFCs, think of the |
| 31 |
Revision header value greater than one as a Supersedes. If the original |
| 32 |
was never released, there's nothing to supersede, and revision should |
| 33 |
always be 1. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 37 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 38 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives