On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 12:57:36AM +0200, Koblinger Egmont wrote: > On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > > Thanks for the patch. This is approximately what I had decided would need > > to be done, but I'm not sure that I like it. It seems like the problem that > > '~' was meant to solve should be solvable by some means which does not break > > the rule that shorter version numbers are smaller. I'll think on it some > > more. > > Sorry, I don't get what you mean... please show me an example :-))
An example of what? > I even had so terrible ideas such as negative numbers (e.g. 3.-1.0) but I > didn't like it. That's pretty much exactly what '~' is, except that it takes effect at the _end_ of the component rather than at the beginning (which is why it changes the rules). > Second, even though I haven't thoroughly tested my patch, I can't see > where it can be buggy. I didn't say that it was. -- - mdz
