On Aug 20, 2010, at 12:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> No, I mean 9.0.0beta4. If we were to adopt the Semantic Versioning spec, one would *always* use X.Y.Z, with optional
ASCIIcharacters appended to Z to add meaning (including "less than unadorned Z).
>
> Well, I for one will fiercely resist adopting any such standard, because
> it's directly opposite to the way that RPM will sort such version numbers.
Which is how?
> Apparently whoever wrote "Semantic Versioning" didn't bother to inquire
> into existing practice.
Tom Preston-Warner of GitHub fame.
Best,
David