Re: beta version numbers?

[Julian Gilbey <J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk>]

> On Tue, Jul 20, 1999 at 09:34:36PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > > Hmm, but how about an 1.2beta6 ?
> > 
> > How about 1.2-beta6 lt 1.2.0?  Works 'cos '-' < '.'.
> 
> You mean using 1.2.0-1 instead of 1.2-1 ? But then, we could also use
> 1.2beta6, since 1.2beta6 lt 1.2.0 according to dpkg. Still, I'd better
> like the version numbers of the beta versions mangled (like "1.2-beta6.1)
> than to be forced to have released versions with version numbers that
> differ from upstream (like "1.2.0" for an upstream "1.2").
> 
> I think I'll keep my 1.999a4 numbering scheme until I hear a better
> solution anyway ;-)

Fair enough.

   Julian

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

  Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, QMW, Univ. of London. J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk
        Debian GNU/Linux Developer,  see http://www.debian.org/~jdg