Re: 2008Q1 -> current: downgrade

[Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost>]

On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 02:23:11PM +0200, Dieter Baron wrote:
>   Exactly; in much the same way as is done for PKGREVISION now.  If a
> package doesnt need it, it uses the default of 0, with no effort and
> no visible clutter in either the Makefile or the resulting version
> number, and no change from existing behaviour.

No, it does not work like PKGREVISION. PKGREVISION naturally extends the
Dewey syntax and infact is just a slightly more restricted version of
modifiers like beta or pl. All examples raised so far fall into the
category of missing thoughts before. The PKGEPOCH syntax is anything but
that and fully agree with Al that it is I don't see the justified
complexity. Using another meta character is even more problematic -- we
are already running low and haven't even decided how to encode the
interesting data.

Joerg