2013/2/12 Stefano Lattarini <stefano.lattar...@gmail.com>: >>> But what if we want to have multiple betas for, say, Automake 1.14? Today, >>> we can just have 1.13b, 1.13d, 1.13f, ...; how can we do so with the scheme >>> you are proposing? >> >> There's always 1.14.0.1, ... >> > Yuck; the new versioning scheme is done exactly to avoid that kind > of overly long version numbers
Well, I agree in general that too many components is yucky, but keep in mind that these _aren't releases_, so assigning them "awkward" version numbers doesn't really seem all that annoying. These really aren't part of the historical record. The existing naming scheme for betas does the same thing (uses "weird" version numbers), but is problematic because it's not mechanically consistent with "ordinary" version numbers (and so screws up cases such as packaging software). I do agree that removing the leading "1." might be a good idea if it's meaningless in practice. Linux's similar action was good. -miles -- Cat is power. Cat is peace.
