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

Simon McVittie writes ("Re: Bug#1135785: Suggest starting date-based version numbers with 0.x"):
> 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 superseded by upstream release 0.1 or similar?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.

Good point.

> 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.

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.