Bug#248618: Section 3.2.1 encourages use of epochs
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 03:20:30PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 03:02:14PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 02:15:29PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > Ironicaly, using the "YYYYMMDD" scheme grants us an epoch whenever upstream
> > > decides to use a normal version number. I propose the following scheme
> > > instead:
> > >
> > > "0.0.0+YYYYMMDD[.X]" for snapshots without a previous release.
> > > "A.B.C+YYYYMMDD[.X]" for snapshots after release "A.B.C".
> > >
> > > (where optional .X is an unsigned integer)
> >
> > What is wrong with an epoch? I find '0.0.0+20040512' quite ugly.
>
> Both are ugly, but the latter will be fixed and an epoch is for ever. I
> hate epochs. Bugs can be fixed but if you get an epoch it'll always be your
> dead weight.
I think you're being way too emotional over version numbers :).
What if you upload a new upstream, but it is too broken yet, and you
want to downgrade in Debian? You need an epoch. Or if you simply make a
mistake? Or a NMU uploads a new upstream version, or a broken version,
by mistake? It happens.
One only should take care to not choose a version system that will
require an epoch increase every time.
--Jeroen
--
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
Jeroen@wolffelaar.nl (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)
http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl
Reply to: