Re: Bad version number based on date advice in policy?
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 11:50:52AM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 03:47:07PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
>
> > Epochs are more inelegant because they never go away, and rather have a
> > tendency of needing increases, which has a tendency of getting more confusing;
> > the ^(0\.)+ parts, on the other hand, disappear when the program authors
> > migrate to 1.0 or whatever.
>
> Unless they go from <date> to 0.x (or 0.0.x, which happened to one of my
> packages).
May I kindly remember that I have adressed this point to some extend
sooner in this thread in <20031127231726.GS23040@seventeen> ?
I proposed to use 0+YYYYMMDD which is smaller than 0.0.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
Reply to: