Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Because in this case the version number conveys something > beyond just a mere number: and consistency in nomenclature helps > developers, and users, to decipher the version.
Please bear in mind that most people who run into a version number that has been changed in this way will be inconvienced by it - it will not confirm to the upstream version number. That's why I think such changes should be made only when necessary, not sweepingly. > Joey> Waiting until you need to change to a sane scheme will not generate > more > Joey> epochs. It will generate less, on average. > > A policy that spells out how to do this right in the first > place shall prevent such mistakes in the future totally. No, it will not. In many cases, epochs will need to be introduced to make the new version numbering work, that would have not been introduced if this change was not made. Your argument applies only to new packages. I think an epoch at some time in the future is preferred to confusing users about version numbers from day 1. -- see shy jo
