Re: libc6_2.0.7 release notes...
--On Tue, Jun 23, 1998 2:59 pm -0400 "Raul Miller" <rdm@test.legislate.com>
wrote:
>> Anyway, this is obviously somewhat of a religious issue, and having
>> said that I whole heartedly agree with Manoj (that there are *zero*
>> technical arguments against epochs), I will now shut up and ignore
>> this thread.
>
> I believe the scope issue constitutes a technical argument.
[Cc to policy added]
I personally feel that the scope issue is a minor, aesthetic, but valid,
technical argument.
My personal suggested scheme would be:
2.0.7.pre.2.0.8pre3
Or some such (I haven't got the bit of policy handy which specifies exactly
which characters I can use), since it includes the full upstream version,
but sorts correctly.
Jules
/----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\
| Jelibean aka | jules@jellybean.co.uk | 6 Evelyn Rd |
| Jules aka | | Richmond, Surrey |
| Julian Bean | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk | TW9 2TF *UK* |
+----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
| War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. |
| When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: