Hallo Janne,

> However, if we keep 2.9 in the loop somewhere, the same logic does
> not apply, since 2.9.0-svn-1 is "the first svn build of 2.9.0, except
> that 2.9.0 will never exist as a release, and it's really the first  
> svn build of 3.0.0, but we're not just calling it that, because of...
> some reason."

AFAIR the reason for not using versions like 3.0.0-svn-1 was that
non-developers don't know what's the meaning of svn, alpha, beta and
so on.

Of course one could say that 2.9 is still greater than 2.8, so without
knowing that odd minor versions are development versions, it's still
the same problem to these users.

Best regards
 Florian

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Reply via email to