On Friday 13 August 2004 9:20 am, John Davis wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-08-13 at 01:38, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> > you know, this maybe silly, but I do kind of like not having version
> > numbers at all, and maybe making the profile names more descriptive
> >
> > so in the amd64 profile, you'd have gcc34, for example
> > and in all of them, we could have xfree and xorg profiles.
> >   Thoughts?
>
> I could see either way working. The nice thing about your proposal is
> that it cuts all of the bloat associated with version numbering. The
> only con that I can see is that it does not offer a standardized way of
> marking profile revisions like jhuebel's does (-r1, -r2, no matter what
> the arch or the change).
>
> Since this is a good comment, I am forwarding it to the list ;)

This is my concern. It seems to me that we still really need to hold on to 
some type of versioning scheme that indicates a progression over time.

I'll just leave it at that. I just wanted to indicate my agreement... :-)

-- 
Jason Huebel
Gentoo/amd64 Strategic Lead
Gentoo Developer Relations/Recruiter

GPG Public Key:
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9BA9E230

"Do not weep; do not wax indignant. Understand."
Baruch Spinoza (1632 - 1677)