pyth.flac-dev.5....@spamgourmet.com wrote: > I seem to recall that changes in the second number indicated a minor change > in the *format* of the file itself (for example, 1.1.x to 1.2.x introduced > a new rice coding option used for 24-bit files).
I wasn't aware of that. > Are there any format changes that would justify that ? I consider the first release in 5 years to be a sufficiently major thing to warrant the bump in versions number, but if people thing 1.2.2 or 1.2.10 or whatever is mor appropriate then I'll go with that. Cheers, Erik -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/ _______________________________________________ flac-dev mailing list flac-dev@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
