[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Unusual version numbering systems

On Wed, 2008-08-27 at 12:51 +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> - package 4.3, if/when it comes along, as 4.30 instead.

and continue to assume a '0' suffix if one is not present, so that 4.4
is actually 4.40 etc.

However, are you sure that getting upstream to use 4.3.0 isn't
achievable? 4.3.1 would follow either 4.3 or 4.3.0

> Of these options, the first may not be possible, the second is a bit
> ugly, and the third is probably the most confusing in that it invents
> version numbers. I think I would prefer the second option, but does
> anyone else have any suggestions or pointers to where this sort of
> problem has been solved before?


Neil Williams

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: