On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 11:21:01 -0700 Wes wrote: WH> >>>>> On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 08:26:11 -0400, Robert Story (Coders) WH> WH> Robert> (side note: I think we ought to use .0 for initial releases- WH> Robert> eg 5.2.0.pre0, 6.0.0. opinions?) WH> WH> What gain?
Consistency. Wasn't someone just saying something about scripts parsing version numbers? :-P I also like that it explicitly make it clear that it's an initial release. WH> I disagree. There, you see Dave? 2-1 against me now! WH> I don't see a benefit in making the version number longer if it doesn't WH> need to be. Well, it's gonna get longer anyway, right? Anyhoo, it's not a biggie. I was just fishing in case others agreed. -- Robert Story; NET-SNMP Junkie <http://www.net-snmp.org/> <irc://irc.freenode.net/#net-snmp> Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum=net-snmp-coders> You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by Black Hat Briefings & Training. Attend Black Hat Briefings & Training, Las Vegas July 24-29 - digital self defense, top technical experts, no vendor pitches, unmatched networking opportunities. Visit www.blackhat.com _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
