Hi Joe, On 24 February 2015 at 12:38, Joe Prostko <joe.pros...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think this is mostly handy for packagers, where it's easier to write > a packaging script knowing the downloaded file will be > somepieceofsoftware-1.2.3.tar.gz, which then extracts out to > somepieceofsoftware-1.2.3. It is mostly a matter of following > convention though used with most other software, as I admit I > personally don't care at all what the filename is and what it extracts > to, as long as the method is consistent (or mostly consistent) from > release to release. That said, if the version number isn't important, > why didn't you call the latest release Fossil 20150223162734 instead > of Fossil 1.31? I think it's useful to keep the naming scheme > consistent in as many places as possible, when possible. To be > honest, I don't think most people care about the date of a software > release, but they are interested in having the latest stable version, > whatever that is. As you said, the versions for Fossil are snapshots, > but a lot of people correlate something like Fossil 1.31 as being the > "latest stable", regardless of it actually meaning that or not.
How have you been updating packages in the past? All releases are like this: 20150223162734 20150119112900 20140612172556 20140127173344 20130911114349 -- ------- inum: 883510009027723 sip: jungleboo...@sip2sip.info xmpp: jungle-boo...@jit.si _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
