Re: Policy Weekly Issue #4/8: Dates in package versions
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 24 Oct 1997, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Santiago> This should be considered as a bug (wishlist),
>
> I object. This versioning scheme may need *one* epoch, in the
> year 2000, if and only if the upstream author continues with the
> version scheme then (the version in the year 2000 may simple be
> 100). I do not see this as a bug, or anything that requires any
> changes yet. Lets not create bugs just because we can.
I meant: We may consider them as *bugs of type wishlist*, because it is
"reasonable" to use four digits for the year. Consider this just as a nice
thing, like preserving time stamps in doc files. [ I don't want anybody to
close this wishlist-type bugs just because "they are not bugs"... ]
Rewrite of the last paragraph:
* We shall consider upstream sources using 2-digit years as an "oddity".
This is not a bug, but it is valid as a wishlist. In this case we will not
"fix" it until it is changed upstream.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: latin1
iQCVAgUBNFDjOiqK7IlOjMLFAQFdLgP+JLBbkUDIZRHXq1EQoWWEUpBleBPNvUom
ezOdRE76CIjMU8uMNM4bwTUqIKyyFsb3A3miMhgbaQY+5XtGcaxwkS/NFYifZvRv
TAOOLcJin1Ft39/ujrf1V6JrK1EUjkSKPX492FNMuCo96PcBwDJGNKUx6DnmXfk2
4iWM8M5GGcM=
=PPg4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: