On 10/23/06, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>>> I'm leaning to 6.2.0.
>>
>> Seems reasonable to me. Do you want me to update the milestones that
>> are available?
>>
>> I'm sorry this response is a bit late. I've been out of town.
>
> [crossposted to lfs-dev, replies should be sent to blfs-dev]
>
> I am out of town right now and will be for a week. As far as
> the milestones go, let's go back to the old-fashioned method
> of the group giving +1, -1 votes for the desired choice of:
>
> 1. Change all the references of BLFS-6.2 to BLFS-6.2.0 and
> go forward.
+1
I already voted, but just to make sure my vote gets counted in the +/-1 system,
+1
I much prefer that we move to 3 part versions, for all books,
actually. The Errata is nice, but I think it allows more frequent
releases to add the patch level to the version number. If you're
following the *LFS books (and building from source in general) with
any degree of attention, then it should be apparent how this extra
version number works.
--
Dan
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
