Am Freitag, 11.07.03 um 22:22 Uhr schrieb Benjamin Reed:
Point taken, you are right of course!-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Max Horn wrote:
The other "solution" which nobody mentioned yet (or maybe I missed it), is rather trivial: we go back to the old scheme of renaming the .info/.patch file for each version/revision. Personally I like that solution much better than any ".info/.patch" combination technique. So far I have yet to personally experience actual advantages of the new "%n.info" scheme (I am curious, folks: tell me your success stories, things you were able to do with the new system which you couldn't do in the past. I am talking about real experience, no theoretical scenarios, please :-)
I don't see how there will be any success stories until enough time passes that packages that are currently unnumbered undergo revision. The advantage in the new naming scheme is being able to see the history, and until you start updating packages, there will be no history. :)
Still I'd be interested to know if somebody has already had any real experiences with this (independent of the subject of the thread, actually). E.g. I converted a few of my packages to the new scheme, but did not yet update any of them again. I wonder if people maybe already have had a chance to make use of the "see the history more easily" feature.
Cheers,
Max
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Parasoft Error proof Web apps, automate testing & more. Download & eval WebKing and get a free book. www.parasoft.com/bulletproofapps1 _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
