Question about clisp version naming

[Ken Brown]

On 3/11/2015 6:20 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-03-11 at 17:35 -0400, Ken Brown wrote:
>> I've succeeded in making dynamic loading of modules work in clisp on
>> Cygwin, and I'll be issuing a new release soon.
>
> Yeah!
>
>> My work was based on the tip of the upstream Mercurial repository, which
>> shows a version number of 2.49+ and is at revision 15623.  So I was
>> thinking of using 2.49+hg15623 as the version number.  Will upset be
>> happy with that?  Or is there some other standard way of assigning
>> version numbers in cases like this?
>
> With setup now being stricter about versions wrt upgrading, we need to
> be as well.  Because this is a post-2.49 revision, it should be
> VERSION=2.49 and RELEASE=2.YYYYMMDDhg15623 (since there was already a
> -1).

That's fine with me, but I just want to make sure that there's no typo 
in what you wrote.  Are we really going to start having release numbers 
that aren't just integers?

Ken