I agree with Daniel that we should prefer 2.249 or consider 2.251 so that we avoid confusion in bug reports. I also like that Ulli noted it increases the Hamming distance. It has been a while since I thought about Hamming codes.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 2:22 PM Daniel Beck <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 29. Jul 2020, at 13:59, Oleg Nenashev <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 2.250 is a fancy number, so why not? > > As I previously explained, too similar to 2.150 which was also an LTS > baseline. Since there's no other notable difference to 2.249, I would > prefer less confusing bug reports over having a nice looking number. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Jenkins Developers" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/374FBAD1-9229-4EC1-B333-1B1BF1B299B5%40beckweb.net > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CAO49JtEw3QRSpm-5UncC%2Bc4M%2BJSpeZ9MBisxvL0W1THqbY36LQ%40mail.gmail.com.
