On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 09:19:55AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: > On Sunday 13 November 2005 04:00, Brian Harring wrote: > > *cough* that's that funky _p1 you're using there? :) > > patchlevel... I think it gives a stronger impression that 2.0.53 is distinct > from 2.0.54. Is distinct the right word? I mean that it kind of shows that > 2.0.53 is done but there was something that needed to be fixed quickly.
2.0.53.1 vs 2.0.53_p1 vs 2.0.53.p1 ... either of the three indicates 2.0.53 had minor fix tagged onto the base 2.0.53 release... > Given > portage's history of using lots of dots, 2.0.53.1 doesn't have as much > impact. Is the "*cough*" a complaint of sorts? Well, knowing what you mean by pN, I'm just going to gesture wildly at my earlier email of "lets fix the whacked out versioning now". ;) This really is a job for a micro; indication of "yeah, we released a good chunk of changes, but there were a few bugs, and these micro vers numbers are minor patches beyond that". Note that _p* is effectively no different then .p* (lots of dots); it still is a fourth component. The only relevant difference is that instead of fixing versioning now (this is assuming people view normal versioning as acceptable), we're introducing differing syntax. Still changing the bugger; I say change it _permenantely_. People will be confused regardless due to the fact portage versioning has always been a bit nuts, plus the .51.22 change followed up by .53. If we go with _p*, we go with _p* _long_ term. So... which will it be? Fix our versioning now, or (subjective and harsh I admit) introduce another half step instead of correcting the mess once and all? :) ~harring
pgpKBnbFQANfA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
