On Wed, 4 Mar 1998, Joel Klecker wrote: > At 12:34 -0500 1998-03-03, Dale Scheetz wrote: > >I understood this when I did it, and expected to identify the released > >version as 2.0.7rel for this very reason. > > I consider that *much* uglier than an epoch.
But if you want to avoid using an epoch, it can be a temporary solution until 2.0.8 or 2.1 is released. I don't think it is very important that a version number is sometimes ugly in the unstable tree. It should become "not ugly" before it gets into the stable tree, though. Remco
