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

[David Holland <dholland-pkgtech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 12:15:28PM +0200, Alan Barrett wrote:
 > On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, David Holland wrote:
 > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 11:23:23PM +0300, Aleksey Cheusov wrote:
 > >  > Ok. Then where is the information about downgrades?
 > >  >  devel/guile-gtk guile-gtk 0.40.91nb3 0.5
 > > 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...

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost