On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 03:49:22PM +0300, Peter Pentchev wrote:
> Agreed. In my packaging, I've been using 0.0.YYYYMMDD for that
> purpose - assuming that when/if the upstream developers decide to
> actually roll out a release, they'll use something larger than
> 0.0.1 for a version number :)
While admittedly more recognizable for users of Western calendars,
an 8-digit ISO 8601esque datestamp is fairly low-density. With only
a couple more digits, you can have epoch seconds as your version
timestamp (as upstream, I actually just do 0.0.<epoch of commit> for
snapshots of some of my not-yet-ready-for-release projects). Just
remember that they'd need to do more than release "something larger
than 0.0.1" to edge out 0.0.<bignumber>... something on the order of
0.1.x would be needed.
--
{ IRL(Jeremy_Stanley); WWW(http://fungi.yuggoth.org/); PGP(43495829);
WHOIS(STANL3-ARIN); SMTP([email protected]); FINGER([email protected]);
MUD([email protected]:6669); IRC([email protected]#ccl);
ICQ(114362511); YAHOO(crawlingchaoslabs); AIM(dreadazathoth); }
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
