On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 12:24:02AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: > 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... Works for me. ~harring
pgpQ79iDJLHKV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
