Re: [Hugs-users] changing the hugs version numbering scheme?

25 Feb 2004

      ...
...
...
...
...
"RP" == Ross Paterson  writes:
RP> On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 08:43:48PM +0100, Sven Panne
    RP> wrote:
    >> Jens Petersen wrote:
    >> >the package version may end up being versioned at
    >> >0.0 unless upstream (ie the Hugs maintainers here)
    >> >agree to some improved (machine friendly) version
    >> >numbering scheme like YYYYMM instead. [...]

    >> I would be even more happy with the common
    >> major.minor numbering scheme, with the usual even (=
    >> stable) / odd (= unstable) distinction of the minor
    >> version number, see e.g. the Linux kernel,
    >> GHC,... Ross, Sigbjorn?

Sounds reasonable. :-)

    RP> I don't mind YYYYMM -- less of a break with
    RP> tradition, or YYYY-MM (though that might force an
    RP> epoch on Debian).

For rpm packaging YYYYMM is preferrable to YYYY-MM, since
rpm uses "-" as a field separator (<name>-<version>-<release>).

Thanks, Jens