Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227075 ------- Additional Comments From fnasser@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-13 11:22 EST ------- I am not sure what is the better course of action w.r.t. the pre-release for these dated packages that were in the previous format (all others get the right rpm ordering, but the YYYYMMDD is a really big number, and for some reason Fedora decided that svn and cvs come _after_ the number). We have basically two choices: 1) Change the format now to the new one and... raise Epoch! 2) Let it be a little longer with the current date in the hopes a release will be issued. Also, I have my doubts about the way the source tar ball is named. This date seems to be the indication of a branch creation date, the release being actually the characters that come after it. I am sending an e-mail to the authors to get that straighten up before we have to do two Epoch bumpings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review