Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Just because one package has been lucky so far is not grouds > for not changing a broken scheme.
That was en example of why this policy is often unneccessary. > Joey> If a new version comes out in 2 days, of course, it will not > Joey> version compare correctly, and so I'll then have to go to a > Joey> sane version numbering scheme. But why impose one before I > Joey> really need to? > > Consistency. Do you claim that our version numbers are in general consitent? Why try to add consitency to this little corner of the version number space? > Setting a sane naming scheme as policy shall also > prevent unnecesary epochs (since just looking at the file names shall > no longer give a clue about prdering once epochs are in place). I > think that using the sane approach in the forst place saves a lot of > hassle. Waiting until you need to change to a sane scheme will not generate more epochs. It will generate less, on average. -- see shy jo
