On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 02:34:06PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > Honestly, if this is going to become a requirement, and I didn't want to > be bothered with it, I would just use . rather than : as my epoch > separator whenever I need to introduce an epoch. The result regarding > upgrades etc is *exactly* the same. I like this idea, but for it to work you need a non-implicit 0 epoch first. -- WBR, wRAR
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature