Should we call out the timestamp in the error message then? If we are moving away from it, it probably makes sense not to include it.
Thanks, John LaBanca [email protected] On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Chris Ramsdale <[email protected]>wrote: > A revision number of 0 wasn't a requirement, I simply observed that other > installers are using a 4-number version. > > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 1:33 PM, John Tamplin <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 1:30 PM, John LaBanca <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> cramsdale/jat - >>> >>> Did one of you mention that the revision number of the IE installer has >>> to be 0, or did I dream that up? >>> >> >> I didn't say that -- I did say I thought Windows wanted 4-number versions, >> and perhaps you added .0 from that. >> >> However, I don't think the docs need to say anything about the date >> convention, as we won't continue that once we get to the final release. >> >> -- >> John A. Tamplin >> Software Engineer (GWT), Google >> > > -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
