Major release number bump is lower than beta for html5lib module.

[Jonathan Dieter]

On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 18:39 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 11:05 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Reindl Harald wrote:
> > > yes it is a hack but better than fake version numbers to
> > > satisfy RPM and that is *the* reason epoch exists at all
> > 
> > +1
> > 
> > That Ubuntu-style apples-101.reallyoranges versioning is misleading and 
> > against Fedora packaging guidelines.
> 
> Yeah, I'd agree with Harald and Kevin in this case: 1.0-0.2.999 is a
> horrible version string, I wouldn't have recommended it even if it had
> been possible. This kind of situation really is the one in which it *is*
> correct to use Epoch - when upstream versioning goes backwards, and
> upstream cannot change it.

I'd see it as a temporary thing until 1.0 does come out (whereas Epoch
changes are forever), but I can totally see your point, and, upon
further reflection, I think you (and Kevin and Reindl) are probably
right.

Jonathan