[Hugs-users] changing the hugs version numbering scheme?

[Sven Panne]

Jens Petersen wrote:
> [...] To summarize, basically the problem is that the package
> version may end up being versioned at 0.0 unless upstream
> (ie the Hugs maintainers here) agree to some improved
> (machine friendly) version numbering scheme like YYYYMM
> instead. [...]

I would be even more happy with the common major.minor numbering scheme,
with the usual even (= stable) / odd (= unstable) distinction of the minor
version number, see e.g. the Linux kernel, GHC,... Ross, Sigbjorn?

Cheers,
    S.