On Monday 14 November 2005 00:46, Jason Stubbs wrote: > 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?
Any thoughts on this? If we use 2.0.54 for the fix for this, that can go into ~arch before 2.0.53_pre7 goes to .53 and arch without versioning getting screwed up. I'm still pretty sure 2.0.53 will be stable (at least on some arch) in under 48 hours and the fix for this should really go out at the same time or before... -- Jason Stubbs -- [email protected] mailing list
