also sprach Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.01.23.1738 +0000]: > > You cannot predict the future. It might me that next version is not > > 2.1 as you expected, but, e.g., 3.0. Why not base your version > > number on things you *know* for sure: that the last released version > > was 2.0? > > This is massively confused. If you name your version > 2.1~20070123svn.r91, and the next veriosn is 2.1, 3.0 or 4090009009, > the transition from the current version to the future version will > work. The only future version which won't work is a version that > compares lower than 2.1 (like, 2.1~~), so the suggestion is valid.
Please reread his point, because it'a a good one. Say 2.0 is based on r90, and r91 comes out with an important patch, then snapshot 2.0+svn-r91 and not 2.1~svn-r91. If you do the latter, you're screwed if 2.0.1 comes out next. -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' : proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck - http://debiansystem.info `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems "'oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing." -- douglas adams, "the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy"
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)
