> When properly used epochs do not hang around forever. Consider the > situation where epochs are supposed to be used: > > Upstream Debian > > 1.0 1.0 > 2.0 2.0 > 3.0 3.0 > 2.0 1:2.0 > 3.0 1:3.0 > 4.0 4.0
Dong! You loose ;-) [as has already been pointed out] 1:3.0 > 4.0 > If we apply epochs to the problem of pre-release version numbering (with > my proposal along side) you should be able to see why I don't like it. > > Upstream Your Proposal My Proposal > > 2.0.8pre1 2.0.8pre1 2.0.7.99.1 > 2.0.8 1:2.0.8 2.0.8 > 2.0.9pre1 1:2.0.9pre1 2.0.8.99.1 > 2.0.9 2:2.0.9 2.0.9 > > As you can see, for every point release, the epoch number must increase. > This presents this problem as an infinitely folded list of repeating > version numbers, which is not actually the case. I don't think anyone was suggesting this. What was being suggested, was that where a mistake is made (i.e. the use of a ``pre'' version in the first place), the right way to recover from it (in the absence of time-travel.deb) was to use an epoch, so the sequence goes: Upstream Debian 2.0.7pre1 2.0.7pre1 (can you see the silent 0: ?) 2.0.7 1:2.0.7 2.0.8pre1 1:2.0.7.99.1 2.0.8 1:2.0.8 2.0.9pre1 1:2.0.9.99.1 2.0.9 1:2.0.9 or whatever other solution the maintainer comes up with to avoid having to use epochs again, until the next SNAFU. > Just a retorical question: Would you insist on epochs if the upstream > author accepted my numbering scheme? Would there be any reason to use > them? To answer your retorical question: Yes there is. If the maintainer typos the changelog, and releases 2.0.9.99.1 as 2.0.99.9.1 (easy mistake to make, easy to miss on the upload), then we'd use an epoch to fix it, although I expect some genius would suggest that we use: 2.0.x9 until 2.1.0 comes out, so that we wouldn't need to use a ``dirty, evil epoch''. > I am also certain that I have > not misrepresented the technical consequences of the use of epochs) Apart from the fact that they never go away, even when used ``properly'' :-) Cheers, Phil. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
