Kev Jackson wrote:
+1 for using a distinct new version number for the RC.
Is there any particular reason to select 2.5 instead of 2.4 ? ( ..
just curious ..)
No, not at all, but I thought a jump to 2 1/2 may stir the attention to
this paritcular facet needed for the relase note (and also needs a
change in the value of the version string in BSFMain, such that the new
method getVersion() will return the version number on which we settle)...
;-)
Tradition dictates that unstable use 'odd' numbers whilst stable use
'even' numbers. Is this an unstable release Rony?
8-)
Also is it a big enough jump to justify a whole new point release - why
not 2.3.1 in dewey decimal?
Hmm, over time (in the past three years) there were a few (little) new
features added, which in sum may well justify an increase to "2.4.0", as
for that reason it is not a bug-release version only anymore.
Would 2.4.0 be an acceptable number, indicating the present 2.3.0 crowd
that a valuable new version (fully backwardly compatible) is about to be
released ?
Regards,
---rony
