Re: updating CHANGES-YYYY manually considered harmful ;-)

[Greg Troxel <gdt%ir.bbn.com@localhost>]

> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 12:15:28PM +0200, Alan Barrett wrote:
>  > On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, David Holland wrote:
>  > > I suppose the Dewey logic is upset that 0.5 > 0.40? Unfortunately,
>  > > many packages are versioned that way.
>  > 
>  > Perhaps the 0.5 should have been 0.50?  I don't know anything about
>  > this particular package, but I do think that it a very bad thing for a
>  > version number to go backwards.
>
> Yeah, presumably. Unfortunately (as the longer list of downgrades that
> was posted elsewhere shows) this interpretation of minor version
> digits is fairly common. While having the version number go backwards
> is bad, rearranging the version number semantics so as to disagree
> with upstream is probably bad too...

upstream realized the problem and released 0.60, which I put in pkgsrc
yesterday.