Sven Neumann writes:
> in my opinion this would only make things even more confusing.
How, exactly? Because the procedure for person doing a release would
be a few steps longer? Or because people would wonder why each other
version is missing when looking at some version history or ftp server
> What about using something like gimp-2.2.8-cvs-20050523.zip for cvs
Well, for Win32 distributions of GIMP stuff, where such files are
handled manually, and/or people have "out-of-band" knowledge that
2.2.8 wasn't released yet at 2005-05-23, that presumably is clear
But if one considers various Unix/Linux package management software,
do they understand that for some packages "2.2.8-cvs-20050523" is
earlier than "2.2.8", but on the other hand, for some other package,
"1.2.3-cvs-20050523" would be later than "1.2.3" ?
Gimp-developer mailing list