Re: Topic: Versioning scheme and 1.0

[David Chart]

--On 3/5/01 14:02 +0200 Joaquin Cuenca Abela wrote:

> I fully agree.  I really prefer the x.y.z system.  This way I (and the
> users) can understand easily if a version is unstable/stable.

Just a quick comment from the user side. I think you are *vastly* 
overestimating how many users will realise that 1.0.4 means 'stable with 
loadsa bug fixes' while 1.1.23 means 'falls over every twenty minutes 
because the table code doesn't work right'.

To the best of my knowledge, the Linux kernels and GNOME projects use the 
even second=stable convention. KDE doesn't, I believe. Mac and Windows OS 
don't. MS Word doesn't. Mulberry (the email client I use) doesn't. I like 
the kernel numbering system. I think it makes a huge amount of sense for an 
Open Source project (and I think you should stick with it for AW). But its 
meaning is *far* from obvious to most users.

David Chart