Mark Tomlinson wrote: > > Sounds like bungled version numbers. I have cdrecord 1.9, which I *assume* > is older than 1.10. Why weren't the older versions called 1.09 etc, to avoid > this problem?
Not necessarily, IBM are well known for such... 1.18 > 1.3 > In case anyone else is creating versioned software: Always use the same > number of digits after a decimal point! Why change the habit of a lifetime? :)
