Should PPAs be forced to specify a ~ppa1 or similar in the package version?

[Felix Geyer]

On 02.04.2011 16:36, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> My practice is to us ~ppa1 when targeting the development release and 
> ~release1~ppa1 for previous releases.  This has the advantage of naturally 
> upgrading to an official backport if one is done since they use a ~releaseX 
> numbering scheme.  For all the reasons Scott argued for ~ppaX, I think 
> ~release1~ppaX is the right answer for non-development releases

That version scheme breaks once we are in the q-series as the p-codename
might be > "ppa".