> If the scripts are that sloppy it's the wrong way to fix it > upstream (I maintain a few hundred packages in ALT Linux). > Even if that's a problem, there's a practice of putting up > "a" releases, like 0.8.2a to hint that 0.8.2 was flaky. > But someone's -0\.[0-9]\.[0-9]\. will choke either. :) True... But just to be pedantic: I always thought the version numbering is something like: major\feature\bugfix
However, in the case of kdenlive, and a few other packages it appears to be more like: invariant\major\feature\bugfix It's not a particular problem, but it's mildly annoying to have varying numbers of fields in release numbers. I am not the maintainer myself, but Sorcerer is maintained by effectively one person, and having to keep tabs on thousands of projects requires the help of some serious scripts, I presume. I am sure that you will appreciate that having less variations to code around is just a nice gesture? I usually report odd bugfix releases of software I am interested in to the maintainer, and they become available distro-wide a while later, so it's not a major issue by any means. -Evert- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RSA(R) Conference 2012 Save $700 by Nov 18 Register now http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1 _______________________________________________ Kdenlive-devel mailing list Kdenlive-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kdenlive-devel
