Re: version numbers
On Wed, May 12, 1999 at 08:19:18AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Mitch writes:
> > Digit placement, (such as that used in 1.02) should not be used in a
> > versioning scheme, because it places predetermined limits on the number
> > of revisions that can happen within a given level.
> Not if a decimal point is inferred if and only if there is a leading zero.
> > Instead, dots (.) should be used to separate revision levels, and leading
> > zeros within a level should be ignored within a numerical field.
> That will lead to confusion. The upstream maintainer put that zero there
> for a reason (though maybe not a good one). I wouldn't do it myself, but I
> have no trouble understanding his intent.
> In any case, both dpkg and the upstream author are beyond my control.
> Do I have any recourse other than an epoch?
Could you call it 1.10, rather than 1.1?
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB (ex-VK3TYD).
CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome.