Re: Bug#17621: [PROPOSED]: About versions based on dates
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Just because one package has been lucky so far is not grouds
> for not changing a broken scheme.
That was en example of why this policy is often unneccessary.
> Joey> If a new version comes out in 2 days, of course, it will not
> Joey> version compare correctly, and so I'll then have to go to a
> Joey> sane version numbering scheme. But why impose one before I
> Joey> really need to?
>
> Consistency.
Do you claim that our version numbers are in general consitent? Why try to
add consitency to this little corner of the version number space?
> Setting a sane naming scheme as policy shall also
> prevent unnecesary epochs (since just looking at the file names shall
> no longer give a clue about prdering once epochs are in place). I
> think that using the sane approach in the forst place saves a lot of
> hassle.
Waiting until you need to change to a sane scheme will not generate more
epochs. It will generate less, on average.
--
see shy jo
Reply to: