Re: version numbers

[Julian Gilbey <J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk>]

> Anthony Fok writes:
> > Anyway, Brian White suggested me to use 1.10 instead of 1.1 in order to
> > avoid the epoch.  And lo and behold, it worked!
> 
> Oh, I already know it will work.  It may confuse the users, though.
> 
> > Not too pretty, but prettier than epoch.
> 
> Why?

Because when version 1.11 is followed by version 1.2 you will have to
change the epoch again, and so on.  And also, the epoch is not
displayed in many contexts, so it may not be obvious to users that the
version numbers are, actually, increasing.

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.

   Julian

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

  Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, QMW, Univ. of London. J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk
             Debian GNU/Linux Developer.  jdg@debian.org
       -*- Finger jdg@master.debian.org for my PGP public key. -*-