On Monday, July 1, 2024 7:07:16 PM EDT Alec Leamas wrote: > On 02/07/2024 00:54, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > On Monday, July 1, 2024 6:46:06 PM EDT Alec Leamas wrote: > >> If you switch hats for a moment: have you any advice for upstream in > >> this situation? > > > > 8763.5.10 > > Yes, I have had a similar idea using 10000 instead of 8763 to make it > stand out less. In my eyes, this is worse and will lead to that the > package versions does not match the "public" version like 5.10.2. > > But if the list agrees that this is the correct solution so be it. To be > honest, it might be a hard sell upstream. > > > Next build is: > > > > 8763.5.10~8764 > > Why? > > --alec
Because the '~' means less than. It's a way to add the build number to the interim versions in the future without causing the same problem again. I guess it should have been 8763.5.11~8764, if 5.11 is the next 'real' version. Scott K
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
