[You (Rob Browning)]
>Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The problem I have with epochs is that it will have to bump each time
>> a packages enters a "pre" period. I fell that's not very nice.
>
>What difference does it make?
In truth, non.
OTOH, I too would be very hesitant to instance an epoch, given that I'm
stuck with that epoch always and forever.
It would be theoretically possible, and I think, enormously desirable to
have some sort of "sub-epoch", say call it 'X-Y:<ver>', such that it
overrides only Y subversions into the upstream version:
2.0.8-1 greater-than 1-3:2.0.7-1 greater-than 2.0.7pre1
Do you see what I'm getting at? A standard epoch could in fact be
represented as, i.e., '1-0:', that is, overriding in every case, and
could have the short-hand notation of the epoch we currently have, i.e.,
'1'.
Problems:
* even uglier than epoch, but who cares
* wouldn't help us get rid of current epoch, but who cares
Anyone like this?
.....A. P. [EMAIL PROTECTED]<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
