On Sunday 13 November 2005 11:52, Brian Harring wrote: > 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". ;)
So then my suggested 2.0.53_p1 should be 2.0.54 and what is currently referred to as 2.0.54 should be 2.1.0? -- Jason Stubbs -- [email protected] mailing list
