Bug#248618: Section 3.2.1 encourages use of epochs

[Robert Millan <zeratul2@wanadoo.es>]

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.
 
> Good point when there is no actual version, but if there is, I see no
> real problem. Change in VCS don't happen often, and it emphasises the
> fact it is an unstable, unreleased version.
> 
> But a different identification, that isn't VCS-specific, like
> 'unreleased20040512' or 'trunk20040512' might be preferable (in the
> latter case it is a bit specific though...). I think the current
> practice is usually okay in this regard, it cannot hurt to be a bit more
> verbose in policy about this.

Either is fine for me. But being VCS-specific is not as it still may generate
an epoch.

-- 
Robert Millan

"[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the
thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he
gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work."

 -- J.R.R.T., Ainulindale (Silmarillion)