Re: Parsec branch (was Re: Bug in Parsec.Token)

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 5:41 AM, Antoine Latter wrote:

On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 6:21 AM, wren ng thornton wrote:

...

I'd argue that it's acceptable, at least under this plan:

* fork parsec-2.1 as parsec2-2.1 * continue to develop parsec2-* (as desired) * deprecate parsec<3 with message to switch to parsec2-* * continue parsec>=3 as parsec-*

Why not use the version numbers 2.* ? If you cannot do that, then it means the versioning scheme is broken. Cheers, JP.