Re: updating CHANGES-YYYY manually considered harmful ;-)

[Aleksey Cheusov <cheusov%tut.by@localhost>]

 >> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 12:15:28PM +0200, Alan Barrett wrote:
 >>  > On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, David Holland wrote:
 >>  > > I suppose the Dewey logic is upset that 0.5 > 0.40? Unfortunately,
 >>  > > many packages are versioned that way.
 >>  > 
 >>  > Perhaps the 0.5 should have been 0.50?  I don't know anything about
 >>  > this particular package, but I do think that it a very bad thing for a
 >>  > version number to go backwards.
 >>
 >> Yeah, presumably. Unfortunately (as the longer list of downgrades that
 >> was posted elsewhere shows) this interpretation of minor version
 >> digits is fairly common. While having the version number go backwards
 >> is bad, rearranging the version number semantics so as to disagree
 >> with upstream is probably bad too...

> upstream realized the problem and released 0.60, which I put in pkgsrc
> yesterday.

This is good, but the real problem is not with this particular package
but with that there is no control for downgrades at all.
Today I've filled a PR about this problem.

-- 
Best regards, Aleksey Cheusov.