Thorsten Glaser <> wrote: > I'd be all in favour of calling the next release 3.00 and then going > on from there numerically (3.01, 3.02, etc.) with only one decimal dot > in the version number ☺
Egads, no. That system is ambiguous, and usually means I have to make my brain reparse the string as 3.0.1, 3.0.2, etc. Keep it Major.Minor.Patch please! > Otherwise, incrementing 0.0.1 per what is a “dev” version now, and > 0.1.* per what is a “release” version now sounds good to me too. I > used to be irritated at first by the extra dot before the dev suf- fix > as well, so I'd recommend lynx-X.Y.Z.tar.{Z,gz} extracting in- to a > lynx-X.Y.Z/ directory. I understand the usage of a 4th level for dev/beta/prerelease versioning. I guess I'd like to understand TD's definitions for what constitutes a major or minor revision, since all I've seen since I've been following this have been patch level releases. Will we ever see a 2.9 or 2.10, or a 3.0? Thanks, Tim -- Tim Larson AMT2 Unix Systems Administrator InterCall, a division of West Corporation Eschew obfuscation!
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Lynx-dev mailing list Lynx-dev@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lynx-dev