Re: gcc 3.2 epoch?

[Miles Bader <miles@lsi.nec.co.jp>]

Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> writes:
> Read the changelog:
> 
>   * Increase epoch due to wrong gpc and chill default version (closes: #163294).

Okay (sigh).

I wish there was some less-severe form of epoch that could operate only
for a limited period of time, so that random mistakes don't end up
increasing the epoch forever.

For instance (this is just a random idea), if there was a `version suffix'
that, like epochs, displayed only the suffix part in the various UIs,
but sorts after the base version, then you could have version sequences like:

                                -version-            -displayed as-
  good version                  2.4.12               2.4.12
  version with horrible bug     2.5.34               2.5.34
  downgrade to good version     2.5.34::2.4.12       2.4.12
  new version with bug fixed    2.5.35               2.5.35

well I'm sure this has been discussed to death in the past... sorry :-x

-miles
-- 
Saa, shall we dance?  (from a dance-class advertisement)