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

[Mirian Crzig Lennox]

address@hidden (Jeffrey Yasskin) writes:

> Mirian Crzig Lennox wrote:
> | However, that won't happen unless
> | Arch can support our version naming scheme, which is typically
> | [productname]-x.y-rel-z (for natural numbers x,y and z).  For example,
> | they want to be able to tag something as "2.1-alpha-4", "2.1-beta-3",
> | "2.1-rc5", and so on.
>
> I seem to remember Tom saying that he was willing to make the version
> numbers more flexible if someone could provide a sort function for them.
> Am I delusional, and if not, is that offer still open? Would that fix
> this problem?

That's the solution I would favour.  I don't think the sorting is that
huge an issue; version number sorting in tla-1.1 was broken for months
before anyone noticed.  When it was finally fixed, nothing else
stopped working.  That suggests to me that (a) version number sorting
isn't as important as people might think, or (b) that version numbers
in their current implementation are so limited that people aren't
using them.

Mirian