On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 19:24:22 -0400 Joshua Slive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I'm +1 for creating 2.1 and 2.2 trees as proposed by Bill.
My one thought about this proposal is that it is unclear whether or not this is attempting to emulate the Perl versioning scheme. If so, then it's backwards, since Perl uses even numbers for releases and odd numbers for development, but Bill proposed that 2.1 be the "stable" branch, and "2.2" become the "development" branch.
