On 03/11/16 01:20 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >> 1. Revision number must be no longer than 9999: >> 1a. to make <=X-r9999 reliable, >> 1b. to prevent pathological uses of revision as date. >> > > Let's just hope nobody starts using tex version numbering and so on. > Dates might be used in cases where upstream doesn't publish sane > revisions (in fact, texlive versions are dates, albeit at the year > level). > > I'm not saying this isn't a good idea, I just could see where it might > crash into reality at some point. >
This is just the revision portion though, that's not part of the version number from upstream. IIRC, the revision is meant to only be used for gentoo ebuild changes, isn't it?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
