Larson, Timothy E. dixit: >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! No, the idea was to have major.minor and go straight from 3.00 to 3.99. >I understand the usage of a 4th level for dev/beta/prerelease >versioning. I actually don’t – that’s what the 3rd level (patchlevel) is for. bye, //mirabilos -- [...] if maybe ext3fs wasn't a better pick, or jfs, or maybe reiserfs, oh but what about xfs, and if only i had waited until reiser4 was ready... in the be- ginning, there was ffs, and in the middle, there was ffs, and at the end, there was still ffs, and the sys admins knew it was good. :) -- Ted Unangst über *fs _______________________________________________ Lynx-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lynx-dev
