On May 1, 2011 seanius wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 03:51:15PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > > I don't think it's Policy's place to tell people that they can't use > > hashes because they *might* result in long version numbers. They > > usually don't. > > +1. otherwise, this seems more like a guideline that ought to be in > the developer's reference rather than enshrined as a MUST in policy. I agree with the position articulated by Russ and Sean here. In any cases hashes are only one way that version numbers can get long. Even if you think putting hashes in version numbers is not useful, I'm pretty sure we don't want to enumerate every possible thing that is not permitted in version numbers. I'd think the obvious place to start would be for policy to specify limits on version length. Maybe I missed something, but I didn't see anything like that. David. P.S. I'm not subscribed to the list.
Attachment:
pgpjNP_xX8Z_x.pgp
Description: PGP signature