Re: Bad version number based on date advice in policy?

Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> And somehow 0.MMDD is more elegant or requires less explanation? > > Absolutely. It's _one_ number, and people can easily understand it's > less than unity. (A lot of upstream versions numbers that have dates > have them because upstream does

Re: Bad version number based on date advice in policy?

Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 09:49:38PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > >> [policy 3.1.2] > >> > I would suggest using 0.MMDD to avoid using epoch when ups

Re: Bad version number based on date advice in policy?

Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 09:49:38PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote: >> [policy 3.1.2] >> > I would suggest using 0.MMDD to avoid using epoch when upstream >> > finally decides to use version 1.0 inste