#1135785 Suggest starting date-based version numbers with 0.x

Package:
debian-policy
Source:
debian-policy
Submitter:
Ian Jackson
Date:
2026-05-07 08:19:03 UTC
Severity:
normal
Tags:
#1135785#5
Date:
2026-05-05 21:07:34 UTC
From:
To:
I think this is probably not controversial, and since I've written
"consider" I hope it can be accepted without too much formality.

Ian.
#1135785#10
Date:
2026-05-05 21:19:17 UTC
From:
To:
Won't this do the wrong thing when the "0.20260505" snapshot is
superseded by upstream release 0.1 or similar? Upstreams don't always
start numbering from 1.0, especially if they're using "semver" where
0.x releases have special semantics.

In some of my packages where the upstream has not yet made any releases
(like src:openjk) I've used a version like 0~20260505, which avoids that.

I've also seen ~20260505 suggested, but I think that breaks the
least-astonishment rule that a version number should usually start with
a number.

     smcv
#1135785#15
Date:
2026-05-05 21:44:10 UTC
From:
To:
Simon McVittie writes ("Re: Bug#1135785: Suggest starting date-based version numbers with 0.x"):

Good point.

I think your practice is the one we should recommend.  And the fact
that I got this wrong seems to show - to me at least :-) - that we
should tell people what the best answer is.

Ian.
#1135785#20
Date:
2026-05-05 23:50:23 UTC
From:
To:
Hi!

For some reason I thought this was already documented somewhere, but if
it is, I cannot find it in either the Debian Policy or the Developer's
Reference. But in any case I think something like this should be
documented, yes.

I think 0~YYYYMMDD is the right pattern, because 0 sorts lower than
0.0 for example.

But this one is not, because a version should start with a digit
(according to the Debian Policy and deb-version(7)), and otherwise
at least dpkg will emit warnings on these versions, but other tools
might outright reject them.

Thanks,
Guillem
#1135785#25
Date:
2026-05-06 09:02:53 UTC
From:
To:
0~date was already proposed 16 years ago by Russ in
<https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=186102#36>.
then Russ cloned the bug as #589478 and reassigned it to devref but
nothing come of it, it is still open.

Maybe policy should suggest 0~date to avoid confusion.

Cheers,
#1135785#30
Date:
2026-05-06 10:30:54 UTC
From:
To:
or maybe someone just proposes a patch for dev-ref?! :)
#1135785#35
Date:
2026-05-06 12:23:10 UTC
From:
To:
Ian Jackson [05/May 10:44pm +01] wrote:

Generally we want all the version number techniques to be in Policy.

I think this should be Policy advice, i.e. use "encouraged".
#1135785#40
Date:
2026-05-06 20:41:58 UTC
From:
To:
Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> writes:

Yes, I think that's a good counterargument to what I assume was my thought
process at the time that this was more advice than a requirement.

Yes, agreed.
#1135785#45
Date:
2026-05-07 08:18:38 UTC
From:
To:
reassign 589478 debian-policy
forcemerge 1135785 589478
thanks

alright, reassigning and force merging accordingly. thanks!