On Thu, 2004-04-08 at 13:03, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Toshio wrote:
> > On Thu, 2004-04-08 at 11:32, Rex Dieter wrote:
>
> > Things could break with strange enough upstream alphabetic release tags:
> > Betas of 1.0 taking the form 1.0[a-z] will break on upgrade from 1.0s =>
> > final (foo-1.0-1.s.rh9 => foobar-1.0-1.rh9) Don't knwo if that's enough
> > of a reason, though.
>
> These kind of cases are already addressed in the naming proposals
> (unless recent ones have changed). Non numeric items in the Version tag
> should be avoided, and are generally moved into the Release: tag.
>
Oops. My bad. In my hypothetical the release should go from 1.s.rh9 to
2.rh9. So I don't know what Warren's reason for the proposed change is.
-Toshio
--
_______S________U________B________L________I________M________E_______
t o s h i o + t i k i - l o u n g e . c o m
GA->ME 1999
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
