Re: Bad version number based on date advice in policy?
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith <p.galbraith@globetrotter.net> wrote:
> > Wouter Verhelst <wouter@grep.be> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 09:49:38PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> >> [policy 3.1.2]
> >> > I would suggest using 0.YYYYMMDD to avoid using epoch when upstream
> >> > finally decides to use version 1.0 instead.
> >>
> >> What's wrong with using an epoch?
> >
> > Most people would prefer not use them if they can avoid it.
> > I suppose they are rather ugly and they need to be explained to people
> > outside of Debian.
>
> And somehow 0.YYYYMMDD is more elegant or requires less explanation?
Absolutely. It's _one_ number, and people can easily understand it's
less than unity. (A lot of upstream versions numbers that have dates
have them because upstream doesn't feel the software to be ready to be
called 1.0)
Peter
Reply to: