Rüdiger Timm wrote:
No, that one is incomplete. It only contains the workspace number
(UPD), not it's full name, f.e. "680m150(Build8995)". Or do I confuse
things here?
We should IMHO show the full version
OpenOffice.org 2.0.1
and build information
SRC680 m150 (Build8995)
Rüdiger
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No confusion. In fact, imho, I don't see why there should be so much
debate on this seemingly straightforward issue. Every other open source
program I have ever used, e.g. Thunderbird, Filezilla, WinCVS, Eclipse,
The GIMP, etc. all display the full version number and sometimes the
build as well. The point is that in this case the third digit is
materially important to knowing what version of the program you're using
because it's part of the structure of the version (three numbers
separated by two periods). For other programs like JEdit, Crimson, or
7Zip, only two digits are used because it's not part of their system.
So with OpenOffice it is important to show it in the About... box.
Right now, a typical user has no way of know whether they are using
version 2.0 or 2.0.1 because when the newer is installed the displayed
version is still only 2.0 -- knowing the build number would be almost
useless to knowing the version because most folks don't know the
correlation between it and the version. If more bug-fix versions of
2.0.1 are to be released then either the build or a fourth digit would
be materially significant to knowing which version one has installed.
Peace to you,
Matthew L. Avizinis
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
