Re: hamcrest 1.2

[Vincent Fourmond <fourmond@debian.org>]

  Hello,

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Brian Thomason
<brian.thomason@eucalyptus.com> wrote:
> I just have a general aversion to epochs as they are a permanent
> solution to a temporary problem, but if the consensus is that an epoch
> is preferred over two binary packages from the same source package,
> I'm happy to do it.  In fact, if no one else weighs in, I'll proceed
> with this tomorrow and also upload the libhamcrest1.2-java package
> that is already in Ubuntu.

  I have no problems with epochs, but if you really want to avoid
them, you could use a version number like this one:

  1.2+really+1.1-1

  That is ugly, but you can get rid of that once a version 1.2.1 is
out and we want it to be the default. It's up to you ;-)...

  Cheers,

      Vincent