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

[Ross Paterson]

On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 08:43:48PM +0100, Sven Panne wrote:
> 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?

I don't mind YYYYMM -- less of a break with tradition, or YYYY-MM
(though that might force an epoch on Debian).  Note that snapshots are
already versioned YYYYMMDD -- you'd probably want a separate package if
you packaged them (as Isaac does for Debian).