[Bug 452559] Review Request: zfuzz - Z fuzz - Type-checker and LaTeX style for Z spec language

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: zfuzz - Z fuzz - Type-checker and LaTeX style for Z spec language


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452559





------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr  2008-06-27 18:26 EST -------
(In reply to comment #18)
> >* regarding the version, if the versioning scheme was changed and the 
> >  version became less recent that the latest date (the ordering is the 
> >  ascii ordering), then you'll have to use an epoch. Not the end of the
> >  world but prone to easy errors when forgetting to specify the epoch
> >  in a version-release string.
> 
> Yes, I know about epoch and its problems.  But
> I don't like the idea of creating an arbitrary "1.0"; it doesn't convey
> any information, and if it were completely arbitrary and
> disconnected from upstream, other distributions might use a different
> version numbering system... leading to confusion.

I don't propose 1.0 as version number, but a plain 0. That way any
versioning scheme chosen later will be newer. It is still possible
to switch to another scheme, for example to be consistent with what
other distros do if 0 is chosen for now. The informative part would 
be in the release tag.
 
> So here's my proposal: version numbering is of the form "(yyyy-2000).mm[dd]".
> Since this was released on 2007-09-11, this is version "7.09". Thus we have
> a normal-looking version number, yet one that easily syncs with upstream.
> Ubuntu uses this format, so it's not unknown in the world.

I don't really object to that, but I think that using a plain 0
and having the date in the release tag leaves more room
for flexibility and allow any change.

If you really don't like that 0, I won't make it blocking, however.

I think I will submit this issue on the packaging list, it is not the
first time something like that happens, and though I don't think it should
be a guideline, some recommendations may be interesting.

> > For the sponsoring, could you please point me to other works you've
> > done in fedora?
> 
> * I created and wrote the majority of the content of:
>  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CreatingPackageHowTo

Ok, I'll sponsor you, that's an interesting initiative.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.