On 14/03/16 11:30, aitor_czr wrote:
>
> On 03/13/2016 10:41 PM, Didier Kryn <kryn@???> wrote:
>> I agree. And I think most people on this list would vote like me
>> for a sequential version number rather than a date. However maybe Jude
>> had the intent to start the numbering when he delivers a first official
>> release. This might be the reason for prefixing with 0. May I suggest
>> using the hash as a minor number and 0 as major?
>>
I'd suggest using a version like:
0.1.jude<date version>+<devuan release starting with 1>
That way when Jude does switch to versioned releases we can assume his
version scheme easily assuming that he starts with > 0.1.
--
Daniel Reurich
Centurion Computer Technology (2005) Ltd.
021 797 722
::
Re: [DNG] Testing vdev with Busybox
