Gilles Scokart wrote:
Note that there is an other argument in favor of granular revision numbers. This solution support much better a possible evolution of the repositories toward a peer-to-peer architecture (see stephano mail "[RT] on package management"). Even if this type of repository is maybe not a good thing for corporate environment, it's a possible evolution that should be anticipated.
Doing work to 'anticipate' something 'possible' generally creates a few issues in term of release.
Now it's true that it introduce additional complexity. But I have some difficulties to imagine what would be the additional complexity for the user, compared to the difficulty of having only one revision number.
The management of it
