> This I don't agree with. You're right, and on re-reading I should've said.. it should be 2.1.1, as we've been using 2.1.1 from cvs, and this is considered to be the release cvs is working towards.
There is a strict rule that numbers *MUST* increment, we've had this dicsussion before and consider that cvs version number is the release we are working towards. By accident this happens to be 2.1.1 not 2.0.0, and I think we are stuck with it. Our announcement can be that we are releasing version 2 or 2.1, as long as the tag and filenames are 2.1.1. My point is that I think we are stuck with the full internal (c.f. marketing) version number being 2.1.1 (or higher) d. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
