Greg Ercolano wrote: > Michael Sweet wrote: >> Greg Ercolano wrote: >>> I think some folks might be downloading eg. 1.0.x instead of 1.1.x >>> because at a quick glance, eg. 1.0.11 might seem like it's newer than 1.1.9 >>> >>> I think if dates were included on the Downloads page next to the releases, >>> this could be avoided. >> Maybe, but we already list them newest to oldest... > > Yes, though I've noticed many (eg. gnu) projects list things > the other way around, oldest to newest, because version numbered > files in raw directory listings show up that way, eg: > ftp://mirrors.usc.edu/pub/gnu/binutils > > So folks used to that are used to quickly scrolling to the > *bottom* and grabbing the last file with the highest last digits. > > Or I believe that to be the cause of some folks grabbing the > absolute oldest 1.0.x revs of FLTK by mistake.
Maybe we can just drop the old releases and just list the current 1.1.x, 1.3.x, and 2.0.x releases instead? Dates can get lost due to moving of the files (for example) to a new server... -- ______________________________________________________________________ Michael Sweet, Easy Software Products mike at easysw dot com _______________________________________________ fltk-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
