]] Thibaut Paumard

> Le 04/05/12 00:29, Peter Samuelson a écrit :
> >
> > [Patrick Lauer]
> >> 1.0_pre20120503 maybe
> >
> > That'd be wrong if you expect a real _alpha, _beta or _pre of the given
> > version in the future. I think in that case you'd need something like
> > 1.0_alpha_alpha20120503 or 1.0_alpha_pre20120503.
>
> 1.0~git20120503 would also break if upstream, later, releases 1.0~alpha.

Then you can use 1.0~+alpha instead.

--
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87mx5oyvoz.fsf@qurzaw.varnish-software.com">http://lists.debian.org/87mx5oyvoz.fsf@qurzaw.varnish-software.com

On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 06:14:38PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> So you don't support for instance 1.0~git20120503, then? (the git
> snapshot from today of what will become 1.0)

They would probably call it 1.0_git20120503 since apparently they don't
believe in the _ field seperator.

--
Len Sorensen


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120507164529.GY10301@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.c a">http://lists.debian.org/20120507164529.GY10301@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.c a