For each set of numbers, they run sequentially, without leading zeros.
9 is less than 12. How is that confusing?
It isn't '90' and '12'
It is '9' and '12'.
Until 3.x, minor odd versions (like 2.7) were used for 'beta' or
'unstable'. That was changed to x.90x. This gives plenty of room for
interim minor versions between major versions without stepping over each
other. (due to the release schedule, there is little way to get to '900'
as a minor release before the next major version) Starting the unstable
series at '900' also gives 10 releases if needed before the next major
version jump. If the regular release schedule is followed, the most
likely outcome is 3-4 unstable releases.
There is a wiki page that explains the version numbering, and if I'm not
mistaken, the FAQ contains a link to it.
Regards,
Adrien
On 3/7/23 3:34 AM, aeg via gnucash-user wrote:
Is there a reason why GnuCash version numbers don't follow a sequence 4.00,
4.01, 4.02, etc. instead of 4.0. 4.1, 4.2?
I find it a little confusing that 4.9 is older than 4.12, and that 4.902 comes
just before 5.0
_______________________________________________
gnucash-user mailing list
gnucash-user@gnucash.org
To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe:
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user
-----
Please remember to CC this list on all your replies.
You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
