Comment 4 for bug 2007702

Hi Lukas, thanks for having a look!

> But I wonder if we should rather change the version number to
> "2:1snap1-0ubuntu1", in order to use a similar format as we have on
> Firefox (LP: #1892724)? What do you think?

So, my hunch reaction to that scheme is "god, are all those numbers
really meaningful and necessary?" Being this is a package that installs
a snap, with all the upstream and almost all downstream changes handled
in the snap, I couldn't think in a way we would benefit from more than
one "free" (i.e., not epoch) number, and that is why I suggested a
simpler scheme — just for the principle of parcimony's sake.

Now, there can definitely be shortsight from my side, as I'm usually
only bumping version numbers, not reworking or creating them. At any
rate, both schemes solve the problem of misleading users, and I'm glad
to change to either.