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

[Tom Lord]

    > From: "Robert Anderson" <address@hidden>

    > >So, for example ntop, the network top utility
    > >which is currently at version 2.2c, could be imported as
    > >ntop--release-2.2c--0 rather than some kludge like
    > >ntop--release--2.2.3.  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!)

    > Is there any reason you can't use:

    > ntop--release-2.2c--0
    > ntop--release-2.2.3--0
    > etc.?

That would require a change to the syntax of branch names.  Since
categories use the same syntax, this would also change category names.

I'm willing to consider accepting a patch that would allow those, but
I see a glitch.

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?


-t