Re: 2008Q1 -> current: downgrade

[Aleksej Saushev <asau%inbox.ru@localhost>]

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
> counter-intuitive.
>
> 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?


-- 
BECHA...
   CKOPO CE3OH...