On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 17:11:22 +0100 Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 1. Revision number must be no longer than 9999: > 1a. to make <=X-r9999 reliable, > 1b. to prevent pathological uses of revision as date. I think most the arguments you've made for this stem from subjective and social problems, not technical ones. I'd hate to be artificially limiting the utility of what can be done with "-r" versions just because *some* of those versions *may* be confusing for humans. I could just as easily argue that using -r200 and -r300 is "confusing", and that 1.2r-300 "could be a problem" and maybe we should abolish -r'vs entirely. The -r200 and -r300 were also not just arbitrary numbers, but they followed the slot version, and so the "-r" suffix was itself not purely a "X < Y", but also conveyed data about what it was for, and served as a predictable anti-collision mechanism ( due to the whole 2-slots-cant-have-identical-versions deal ) And as you know I was considering a similar strategy to be able to have several variations of the same perl virtual for upgrade reasons, but that would predictably have a much wider variety of '-r ' prefixes to represent the wider variety of significant Perl versions. > 2. I think we could use a policy to make >=X_alpha reliable. However, > I have no clue how to word it without making it weird and artificially > restricting valid version numbers.
pgpxetCnBlBeS.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
