| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:57:39 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>>> Funnily enough... If we're going by PMS drafts, that's illegal |
| 6 |
>>> whereas multiple suffixes are legal. PMS permits multiple suffixes, |
| 7 |
>>> but limits any individual version component to eight digits to avoid |
| 8 |
>>> problems with integer overflows, floating point precision etc. |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>> And when PMS specifies that together with a proper way to compare |
| 11 |
>> multiple suffixes there will be no problem. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> PMS *does* specify a proper way of comparing multiple version suffixes |
| 15 |
> (and version specs with a leading zero for that matter). I'm not |
| 16 |
> particularly happy with the wording, but as far as I can see the |
| 17 |
> description is at least correct, even if it isn't clear. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
Alright guys, |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
This is enough. PMS is a work in progress its not going to cover |
| 23 |
everything that users and developers are going to be in some cases |
| 24 |
boneheaded enough to actually pull off (always have edge conditions). |
| 25 |
We're continuing to downgrade here and quite frankly the discussions |
| 26 |
seem be getting into tangents more then the actual topic at hand (you |
| 27 |
know...the fact about what the proper suffix format is), and that is up |
| 28 |
to the council to decide. If you have issues with the council, bring it |
| 29 |
up in the proper channel, as others have mentioned where its at. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Now either get it back on topic, take it to private emails to discuss |
| 33 |
between yourselves, or take up the issues that relate to the council, to |
| 34 |
the councils mailing-list/members. They are actually you know...alive |
| 35 |
and willing to talk to you. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Annoyed proctor out |
Archives