On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 08:35:19PM +0100, Marc Espie wrote: > On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 03:38:50AM +1100, Andrew Dalgleish wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 11:04:35AM +0100, Marc Espie wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 10:34:21AM +0800, Uwe Dippel wrote: > > > > If you dared to be radical, you'd split the name into 3 parts: > > > > generic name - human readable version - unix time. > > > > > > > > That would read > > > > python-expat-2.3.5-1131013320 > > [snip] > > > > > This does not take care of branch issues... > > > > Which branch issues do you mean? > > Do you mean things like python 2.3 vs python 2.4? [snip] > No, I'm thinking of current vs. stable.
I don't understand. Aren't they separate CVS branches? Each CVS branch can (and already does) contain different package versions, regardless of the naming/numbering scheme you choose. The only problems I can see are for users mixing -current and -stable.
