On Nov 29, 2007 2:56 PM, AJ MacLeod wrote:
> I would strongly disagree with that - with every respect for those who
> were
> affected by the events you mention, it's only a set of numbers (not even a
> date, in any recognisable format), and since 0.9.11 comes right after
> 0.9.10,
> it's only logical to use them. If we start being ridiculously
> over-sensitive
> to particular numbers we'll end up with a very odd version history
> indeed...
Everyone seems to agree that version numbers are an arbitrary set of numbers
and the only really important thing is that each subsequent version has a
higher number than all the previous versions in a branch.
But then most people seem to also follow that up with very strongly held
opinions about what the version number should be. As we've seen from just a
few postings in this thread, there is a variety incompatible, yet strongly
held opinions on the subject.
I may jump in and make an executive decision on this one, and it shouldn't
be a big deal because it's just an arbitrary number that is higher than the
previous release. And I may attempt to piss everyone off, just to keep it
fair. :-)
Best regards,
Curt.
--
Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/
Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper
from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going
mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future.
http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
