| 1 |
On 03/11/16 01:20 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> 1. Revision number must be no longer than 9999: |
| 5 |
>> 1a. to make <=X-r9999 reliable, |
| 6 |
>> 1b. to prevent pathological uses of revision as date. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Let's just hope nobody starts using tex version numbering and so on. |
| 10 |
> Dates might be used in cases where upstream doesn't publish sane |
| 11 |
> revisions (in fact, texlive versions are dates, albeit at the year |
| 12 |
> level). |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> I'm not saying this isn't a good idea, I just could see where it might |
| 15 |
> crash into reality at some point. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
This is just the revision portion though, that's not part of the |
| 19 |
version number from upstream. IIRC, the revision is meant to only be |
| 20 |
used for gentoo ebuild changes, isn't it? |
Archives