Ian Jackson [05/May 10:44pm +01] wrote:
> Simon McVittie writes ("Re: Bug#1135785: Suggest starting date-based version
> numbers with 0.x"):
>> Won't this do the wrong thing when the "0.20260505" snapshot is
>> superseded by upstream release 0.1 or similar? Upstreams don't always
>> start numbering from 1.0, especially if they're using "semver" where
>> 0.x releases have special semantics.
>
> Good point.
>
>> In some of my packages where the upstream has not yet made any releases
>> (like src:openjk) I've used a version like 0~20260505, which avoids that.
>>
>> I've also seen ~20260505 suggested, but I think that breaks the
>> least-astonishment rule that a version number should usually start with
>> a number.
>
> I think your practice is the one we should recommend. And the fact
> that I got this wrong seems to show - to me at least :-) - that we
> should tell people what the best answer is.
Generally we want all the version number techniques to be in Policy.
I think this should be Policy advice, i.e. use "encouraged".
--
Sean Whitton
