-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On 24 Oct 1997, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Santiago> This should be considered as a bug (wishlist), > > I object. This versioning scheme may need *one* epoch, in the > year 2000, if and only if the upstream author continues with the > version scheme then (the version in the year 2000 may simple be > 100). I do not see this as a bug, or anything that requires any > changes yet. Lets not create bugs just because we can. I meant: We may consider them as *bugs of type wishlist*, because it is "reasonable" to use four digits for the year. Consider this just as a nice thing, like preserving time stamps in doc files. [ I don't want anybody to close this wishlist-type bugs just because "they are not bugs"... ] Rewrite of the last paragraph: * We shall consider upstream sources using 2-digit years as an "oddity". This is not a bug, but it is valid as a wishlist. In this case we will not "fix" it until it is changed upstream. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: latin1 iQCVAgUBNFDjOiqK7IlOjMLFAQFdLgP+JLBbkUDIZRHXq1EQoWWEUpBleBPNvUom ezOdRE76CIjMU8uMNM4bwTUqIKyyFsb3A3miMhgbaQY+5XtGcaxwkS/NFYifZvRv TAOOLcJin1Ft39/ujrf1V6JrK1EUjkSKPX492FNMuCo96PcBwDJGNKUx6DnmXfk2 4iWM8M5GGcM= =PPg4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
