[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Making microbranches popular
From: |
Tom Lord |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Making microbranches popular |
Date: |
Mon, 26 Jan 2004 14:25:22 -0800 (PST) |
> From: "Robert Anderson" <address@hidden>
> >So, for example ntop, the network top utility
> >which is currently at version 2.2c, could be imported as
> >ntop--release-2.2c--0 rather than some kludge like
> >ntop--release--2.2.3. This would also have the important effect of
> >preventing me banging my head against the wall if an actual version
> >2.2.3 decides to be released in future. (I swear people do this
> sort
> >of thing simply to annoy package maintainers!)
> Is there any reason you can't use:
> ntop--release-2.2c--0
> ntop--release-2.2.3--0
> etc.?
That would require a change to the syntax of branch names. Since
categories use the same syntax, this would also change category names.
I'm willing to consider accepting a patch that would allow those, but
I see a glitch.
For upwards compatability, this would have to remain an arch
package-version name:
emacs--21.3 # is a version with empty branch name
but this change would make the following a new valid package-*branch*
name:
emacs--21.3a # is a branch with no version id
Is the inevitable resulting user confusion really worth it?
-t