Re: version numbering
martin f krafft <email@example.com> writes:
> also sprach Lars Bahner <firstname.lastname@example.org> [2005.08.18.2346 +0200]:
>> Please CC: me as I am not on this list!
> Please consider setting Mail-Followup-To accordingly.
>> Upstream names the betas for 0.7.3.3 as 0.7.3.3.b1-b30 - as you no
>> doubt already guessed.
> This is why we now have the ~ operator.
>> So now that there is no beta-versioning, the installer sees this
>> as a lower number. I could of cource number the package as
>> 0.7.3.3.c or 0.7.3.3.final, but I was wondering what The Right
>> Thing To Do would be.
> I think you have to resort to an epoch. Using 0.7.3.3.final seems
> okay to me too. I don't think there is a Right Way.
Please don't use an epoch. You can never get rid of it. A
0.7.3.3.final can be replaced by 0.7.3.4 and then the uglyness is