Re: version numbers
- To: email@example.com (James Mastros)
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org ( Debian mentors list)
- Subject: Re: version numbers
- From: Julian Gilbey <J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 02:09:40 +0100 (BST)
- Message-id: <E10hk0K-0005di-00@polya>
- In-reply-to: <19990512205235.B3327@jenner> from James Mastros at "May 12, 1999 8:52:35 pm"
> On Thu, May 13, 1999 at 01:31:52AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > Another possibility is the following. Increase the epoch at this
> > point to 1 (so you would have version 1:1.1), but from now on use a
> > triple version number, thus: this release will be 1:1.1.0 or 1:1.1,
> > the next minor upgrade will be 1:1.1.1 (and *not* 1:1.11), the next
> > major release will be 1:1.2.0 and so forth.
> Exactly what I meant; thank you.
> -=- James Mastros
Apologies -- I've been seeing so many emails about this question that
I probably saw yours and later it finally clicked that this was the
right thing to do without realising that I'd seen it before.
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, QMW, Univ. of London. J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk
Debian GNU/Linux Developer. email@example.com
-*- Finger firstname.lastname@example.org for my PGP public key. -*-