[rfk-dev] bugs -- pedro overthinks version numbers!

[David Griffith]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2012, Peter A. H. Peterson wrote:

> Quoting Eric S. Raymond:
>> Peter A. H. Peterson <pedro at tastytronic.net>:
>>> If it's too embarassing to imagine me overthinking these things as a
>>> robotfindskitten fanboy, you can instead think of me as a zealous
>>> advocate for the defense of rfk tradition. It's my fiduciary duty to
>>> make the best case I can, while deferring to the wisdom of the group.
>>
>> Understood.  robotfindskitten is performance art;
>
> Haha -- yes!
>
>> it is very important
>> that we preserve the peculiar esthetic of the original.  You are not
>> "overthinking", you are defending the integrity of the work.  I get
>> this and do not need persuasion about either its desirability or
>> your ability and authority to do it.
>
> Thanks. I serve at the pleasure of the consortium.
>
>>> THAT SAID, regarding the NKI count...
>>
>> I think we should keep the present version-number format.
>>
>> I think the minor part should be a count of NKIs in the file or
>> files we ship with the distribution. I do not think it should
>> change at runtime if the user installs new NKI files.
>>
>> This would accomplishe the traditional purpose of the NKI part, which
>> is to be a minor version number tied to the release level of the
>> tarball.
>
> That works for me and seems like a pretty good (and harmless)
> compromise. I vote we progress with that approach unless there are
> objections.

I still think the second number of the version string should be 
"sensible".

-- 
David Griffith
dgriffi at cs.csubak.edu

A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?