[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Making microbranches popular
From: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Making microbranches popular |
Date: |
Mon, 26 Jan 2004 17:30:21 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.3.28i |
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 02:25:22PM -0800, Tom Lord wrote:
> 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?
I suspect the number of people that use empty branch names is very small
anyway though.
Anyway, in what circumstances does it actually make a difference in use?
-Miles
--
We live, as we dream -- alone....
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Making microbranches popular, Robert Anderson, 2004/01/26
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Making microbranches popular, Robert Collins, 2004/01/26
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Making microbranches popular, Tom Lord, 2004/01/26
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Making microbranches popular, Mirian Crzig Lennox, 2004/01/26
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Making microbranches popular, Andrew Suffield, 2004/01/26
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Making microbranches popular, Neil Stevens, 2004/01/26
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Making microbranches popular, Mirian Crzig Lennox, 2004/01/27