> Why the interest in these dates? Are you a historian? I am not a historian, but I like history. :-) I feel software should keep a good record of their important dates, e.g. the release date. This information might be a valuable material for future. Anyway, this is rather a personal opinion.
> The dates in the Readme files do not always >correspond to release >dates. >Usually they list dates when the last code change >takes place, but >release >often happens later for various reasons (for example >further testing, >or >waiting for export-controlled FTP sites to publish >the files >(thankfully >that's no longer a worry)). In that case, I shall treat the release dates as the one included in the Readme file. >> Crypto++ 4.0 - 02 Nov 2000 >> Crypto++ 4.1 - 13 Jan 2000 >Did you notice that 4.1 is dated *earlier* than 4.0? >It's a typo, and >should be 1/13/2001 instead. Oh ya, I didn't notice it. Thanks. ------------------------------------------------- This is the corrected version of Crypto++ release date history: > Crypto++ 1.0 - 23 Jun 1995 > Crypto++ 1.1 - 27 Oct 1995 > Crypto++ 2.0 - 19 Feb 1996 > Crypto++ 2.1 - 10 May 1996 > Crypto++ 2.2 - 02 May 1997 > Crypto++ 2.3 - 17 Jan 1998 > Crypto++ 3.0 - 01 Jan 1999 > Crypto++ 3.1 - 27 Apr 1999 > Crypto++ 3.2 - 20 Mar 2000 > Crypto++ 4.0 - 02 Nov 2000 > Crypto++ 4.1 - 13 Jan 2001 > Crypto++ 4.2 - 05 Nov 2001 > Crypto++ 5.0 - 11 Sep 2002 ------------------------------------------------- __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com
