| 1 |
>>>>> On Thu, 3 Nov 2016, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> == Policy changes? == |
| 4 |
> I think that the following new policies could make sense: |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> 1. Revision number must be no longer than 9999: |
| 7 |
> 1a. to make <=X-r9999 reliable, |
| 8 |
> 1b. to prevent pathological uses of revision as date. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I think that we should consider restricting revisions to 4 digits. |
| 11 |
Real revisions (i.e., counted up from r0) in the tree seem to end |
| 12 |
somewhere around r30. Even with r100, r200 for different slots, a |
| 13 |
limit of 9999 shouldn't pose any problems. For date based versions, |
| 14 |
_pre or _p should be used, but not revisions. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Note that this would be tree policy only (similar as the maximum |
| 17 |
length of 18 digits for version components is), but _not_ a |
| 18 |
restriction to be put in PMS. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> 2. I think we could use a policy to make >=X_alpha reliable. |
| 21 |
> However, I have no clue how to word it without making it weird and |
| 22 |
> artificially restricting valid version numbers. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Or rules concerning multiple suffixes are simple and straight forward, |
| 25 |
and they don't appear to be abused. Therefore, I would leave them |
| 26 |
alone. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Ulrich |
Archives