Tell that to Linus Torvalds -- they make incompatible changes
in the Linux kernel between X.Y.Z and X.Y.Z+1. Unfortunately
it is a fact of life.
Would it be nice if people followed the convention? Sure.
Considering you know the author of g-wrap, you should probably
talk to him directly instead of us.. ;)
-derek
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linas Vepstas) writes:
> + * Update README to mention g-wrap 1.3.2 (instead of 1.1.9)
>
> I am reminded to remind everyone that when one makes an incompatible change in
> some software, one should bump the *major* version number. Minor version
> number bumps are for added features, and revisions (the last digit) are for
> bug fixes.
>
> g-wrap should really start following this numbering scheme, it would
> really help contain the confusion. (i.e. g-wrap should really
> be on version 4.0 or 5.0 by now, given the many incompatible changes its seen.)
>
>
> --linas
>
> --
> pub 1024D/01045933 2001-02-01 Linas Vepstas (Labas!) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> PGP Key fingerprint = 8305 2521 6000 0B5E 8984 3F54 64A9 9A82 0104 5933
--
Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory
Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB)
URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/ PP-ASEL-IA N1NWH
[EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP key available
_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gnucash.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
