On Tuesday 15 November 2005 00:32, Marius Mauch wrote: > On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 00:24:02 +0900 > > Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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... > > Replace 2.1.0 with 2.2.0 and I'll agree.
Brian? Others? -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
