[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: 2008Q1 -> current: downgrade
Alan Barrett <apb%cequrux.com@localhost> writes:
> On Tue, 06 May 2008, Alistair Crooks wrote:
>> But what's confusing me is that this epoch has a higher precedence,
>> and yet it's tagged onto the end of the version number. Straight away,
>> that has ordering implications, is counter-intuitive, and is unlikely
>> to fly long term.
>> i.e. 0.14.2,1 above needs to become 1<sep>0.14.2. A missing epoch
>> number and separator means the epoch defaults to 0 for the epoch.
> I don't care about the exact syntax, only about the overall semantics.
> The syntax I suggested is what FreeBSD does, but I agree that it's
> Aleksey Cheusov posted something from Debian, in which they would use
> "1:0.14.2". I'd be happy with that too.
Using colon may be dangerous under MS Windows, do we still support Interix?
Main Index |
Thread Index |