Re: Bad version number based on date advice in policy?
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 11:50:52AM -0500, Matt Zimmerman 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).
That's why I suggested several 0. parts (both in the above regexp and in the
bug report). But Bill's idea sounds good, too.
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Reply to: