Yeah, I think this is fine. I just wasn't sure if I was reading it wrong.
Sounds great! Chris On 5/27/07, Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Chris Custine a écrit : > [x] +1 : This numbering scheme fits me > > Sounds good to me guys. One thing that wasn't clear to me though, are we > literally talking about 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 progression or are you talking > about any non whole number (like 1.5, 1.6, 1.7) for transitional > versions? > Either way is fine with me, I just wanted to make sure I understood > correctly. 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 progression should be ok, to keep the semantic clear. We can go for any 1.5.X versions if needed. wdyt ?
