On Sun, 20 Aug 2023 at 19:38, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%bec.de@localhost> wrote:
On Sun, Aug 20, 2023 at 12:35:52PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> I think it's a simple matter of someone producing a patch for epoch. I
> am not aware of any real objections to doing this in a way with
> semantics that match the other systems.
That's not the reason. The reason we don't have epoch numbes is because
the existing system handles the case well enough. There is just no
generally agreed standard on what to use as magic high component number.
I would have to disagree there - the issue of an upstream version
reducing is rare, but we do not have any way to handle it, and have
this issue _every_ time.