On Tue, May 05, 2026 at 10:44:10PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Simon McVittie writes ("Re: Bug#1135785: Suggest starting date-based version
> numbers with 0.x"):
> > Won't this do the wrong thing when the "0.20260505" snapshot is
> > superseded by upstream release 0.1 or similar? Upstreams don't always
> > start numbering from 1.0, especially if they're using "semver" where
> > 0.x releases have special semantics.
>
> Good point.
>
> > In some of my packages where the upstream has not yet made any releases
> > (like src:openjk) I've used a version like 0~20260505, which avoids that.
> >
> > I've also seen ~20260505 suggested, but I think that breaks the
> > least-astonishment rule that a version number should usually start with
> > a number.
>
> I think your practice is the one we should recommend. And the fact
> that I got this wrong seems to show - to me at least :-) - that we
> should tell people what the best answer is.
0~date was already proposed 16 years ago by Russ in
<https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=186102#36>.
then Russ cloned the bug as #589478 and reassigned it to devref but
nothing come of it, it is still open.
Maybe policy should suggest 0~date to avoid confusion.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <[email protected]>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
