> I strongly recommend that you follow the "0.99+1.0beta4-1" scheme that > was suggested. Yes it's long, but it's also correct, flexible, and > proven. In summary, the format is > [last_stable_version]+[experimental_version]-[package_version]. Please > use it, starting with your existing packages, before they go into the > official archive. Now is the time to get things right. sure, I agree it is way better, *but* there is users that already have packages with versions in the current scheme, and it (sorry) sucks that they have to downgrade to be up to date. that's why I swear that after the 1.0 final I'll use this scheme, but for the current betas I have to respect the previous "error" (since it's indeed tasteless, but totally policy-compatible) But I have a doubt suddently, since the (close: #ITP_nb) is not in the changelog of the _last_ revision ... Do I need it to be in the last revision to be taken into account ? -- Pierre Habouzit http://www.madism.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature