Walter Bright, el  6 de November a las 11:57 me escribiste:
> On 11/6/2013 4:34 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> >Also I find strange that the first patchlevel version is 2 and not 1.
> >Was that intended or just an error?
> It was intended. I felt that 2.064 => 2.064.1 would have been
> confusing, hence 2.064 => 2.064.2

That's funny, I find it very confusing to jump from 2.064 to 2.064.2.
2.064 is implied to be 2.064.0, as version 1 is implied to be 1.0 (and
as a floating point number 1 is 1.0, not 1.1).

Every other project out there uses this convention. So I wonder why do
you find 2.064 => 2.064.1 confusing.

Looking at previous versions I just noticed you did the same with 2.063,
I didn't notice then. But please, could you consider changing that
naming scheme and using 2.0XX.1 as the 1st patchlevel (see the relation?


And I would also want to thanks for another great release, with a great
changelog despite the protests! :D

Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)           
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
A lo que Peperino respondióles: aquel que tenga sabañones que se los
moje, aquel que padece calvicie no padece un osito, no es bueno comer
lechón en día de gastritis, no mezcleis el vino con la sandía, sacad la
basura después de las ocho, en caso de emergencia rompa el vidrio con
el martillo, a cien metros desvio por Pavón.
        -- Peperino Pómoro

Reply via email to