| 1 |
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 03/11/16 01:20 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> Let's just hope nobody starts using tex version numbering and so on. |
| 5 |
>> Dates might be used in cases where upstream doesn't publish sane |
| 6 |
>> revisions (in fact, texlive versions are dates, albeit at the year |
| 7 |
>> level). |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> I'm not saying this isn't a good idea, I just could see where it might |
| 10 |
>> crash into reality at some point. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> This is just the revision portion though, that's not part of the |
| 14 |
> version number from upstream. IIRC, the revision is meant to only be |
| 15 |
> used for gentoo ebuild changes, isn't it? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Correct, I intended to comment on the version, not revision. However, |
| 19 |
the 18 digit limit could still become an issue there with pathological |
| 20 |
cases like Tex (which basically communicates 1 bit of information in |
| 21 |
each digit it adds). I still don't think it makes sense to design |
| 22 |
things around seemingly-clever converging numbering schemes. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Rich |
Archives