Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Making microbranches popular

[Aaron Bentley]

On Mon, 2004-01-26 at 13:39, Mirian Crzig Lennox wrote:
> I seem to recall that a few months ago, there was some discussion
> about relaxing the restriction on branch names (or alternatively to
> create some kind of alias mechanism for more free-form names).  Is
> that still under consideration?
[snip example]
> 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!)

I know David Allouche would probably find this useful too, as he has to
deal with version numbers like 2.3-5

When I started with Arch, the tutorial said it only supported 2 digits
of version numbers, and I was disappointed, because we use three. 
Mapping was not easy.

Actually, I'm not sure what the advantage of version numbers is: why not
have
tla--12pre--patch-1 and tla--1.2.3--patch-32 etc?  Does anyone feel
strongly that version numbers are valuable in addition to branches.  And
if they are valuable, must they be required?

Aaron

-- 
Aaron Bentley
Director of Technology
PanoMetrics, Inc.