On 30-Mar-01, 17:47 (CST), Brian Russo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 12:45:31PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > > + One example of this is if the current version of the > > + <em>stable</em> and <em>unstable</em> package is 1.2-1, then > > + a new upload can have 1.2-1.90 for <em>stable</em> and 1.2-2 for > > + <em>unstable</em>. Each should be compiled on that > > personally I prefer the foo-1.2-1.potato.1 notation
Likewise. Picking arbitrary numbers strikes me as unwise, particularly ".90" because it looks like the common beta release convention, not something we want to look like we're doing with the "stable" release. > i always thought incremental debian revisions were for NMU's? I use them on post release revisions, just because it seemed the obvious thing to do. If someone really cares whether or not it was an NMU, the can always look at the changelog. Another possiblity is simply 1.2-1a, 1.2-1b, etc. One possible problem with the 1.2-1.potato.1 convention is what is the proper syntax for an NMU of a stable package? 1.2-1.potato.0.1? It gets silly pretty fast. The whole point of the NMU -x.y convention (as I recall) was simply to make sure that the NMU'r and the developer didn't accidentally re-use the same revision number. Steve -- Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
