| 1 |
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 12:24:02AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Monday 14 November 2005 00:46, Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Sunday 13 November 2005 11:52, Brian Harring wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 09:19:55AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > > On Sunday 13 November 2005 04:00, Brian Harring wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > > > *cough* that's that funky _p1 you're using there? :) |
| 7 |
> > > > |
| 8 |
> > > > patchlevel... I think it gives a stronger impression that 2.0.53 is |
| 9 |
> > > > distinct from 2.0.54. Is distinct the right word? I mean that it kind |
| 10 |
> > > > of shows that 2.0.53 is done but there was something that needed to be |
| 11 |
> > > > fixed quickly. |
| 12 |
> > > |
| 13 |
> > > 2.0.53.1 vs 2.0.53_p1 vs 2.0.53.p1 ... either of the three indicates |
| 14 |
> > > 2.0.53 had minor fix tagged onto the base 2.0.53 release... |
| 15 |
> > > |
| 16 |
> > > > Given |
| 17 |
> > > > portage's history of using lots of dots, 2.0.53.1 doesn't have as much |
| 18 |
> > > > impact. Is the "*cough*" a complaint of sorts? |
| 19 |
> > > |
| 20 |
> > > Well, knowing what you mean by pN, I'm just going to gesture wildly at |
| 21 |
> > > my earlier email of "lets fix the whacked out versioning now". ;) |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> > So then my suggested 2.0.53_p1 should be 2.0.54 and what is currently |
| 24 |
> > referred to as 2.0.54 should be 2.1.0? |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Any thoughts on this? If we use 2.0.54 for the fix for this, that can go into |
| 27 |
> ~arch before 2.0.53_pre7 goes to .53 and arch without versioning getting |
| 28 |
> screwed up. I'm still pretty sure 2.0.53 will be stable (at least on some |
| 29 |
> arch) in under 48 hours and the fix for this should really go out at the same |
| 30 |
> time or before... |
| 31 |
Works for me. |
| 32 |
~harring |
Archives