1 |
On Sunday 13 November 2005 11:52, Brian Harring wrote: |
2 |
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 09:19:55AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: |
3 |
> > On Sunday 13 November 2005 04:00, Brian Harring wrote: |
4 |
> > > *cough* that's that funky _p1 you're using there? :) |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> > patchlevel... I think it gives a stronger impression that 2.0.53 is |
7 |
> > distinct from 2.0.54. Is distinct the right word? I mean that it kind of |
8 |
> > shows that 2.0.53 is done but there was something that needed to be fixed |
9 |
> > quickly. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> 2.0.53.1 vs 2.0.53_p1 vs 2.0.53.p1 ... either of the three indicates |
12 |
> 2.0.53 had minor fix tagged onto the base 2.0.53 release... |
13 |
> |
14 |
> > Given |
15 |
> > portage's history of using lots of dots, 2.0.53.1 doesn't have as much |
16 |
> > impact. Is the "*cough*" a complaint of sorts? |
17 |
> |
18 |
> Well, knowing what you mean by pN, I'm just going to gesture wildly at |
19 |
> my earlier email of "lets fix the whacked out versioning now". ;) |
20 |
|
21 |
So then my suggested 2.0.53_p1 should be 2.0.54 and what is currently referred |
22 |
to as 2.0.54 should be 2.1.0? |
23 |
|
24 |
-- |
25 |
Jason Stubbs |
26 |
-- |
27 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |