2.9 and 2.09 are two very different version numbers. But the point of my email is that now that LL has re-versioned and released 2.5.1 officially, shouldn't the development snapshot get bumped up to 2.5.2 or 2.5.3?
On Mar 4, 2011, at 11:49 AM, Kadah wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > I believe versioning numbers would go from 2.9 to 2.10 instead of 3.0 > > I think SL has used the non-decimal numerical school of thought for > versioning on the viewers, like with Viewer 1 > > On 3/4/2011 6:45 AM, Trilo Byte wrote: >> I understand the rationale behind dialing back the version numbering to >> 2.5.1 (it put the viewer on a path towards 3.0 much sooner than may have >> been desired), but seeing as 2.5.1 was given an official release yesterday >> shouldn't the development snapshots be on 2.5.2 to avoid confusion? >> >> TriloByte Zanzibar >> _______________________________________________ >> Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: >> http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev >> Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting >> privileges > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNcUJQAAoJEIdLfPRu7qE2PvUH/3ClfHAFpBjKR8rMAxQjiC7w > dB7F7iWdi+ASU/LvtWf6VCEyI9WxYH01CqdkwFSttvRSqLepligPnWeepSxF1GWi > lk0XUJkFPcR7IvjznVOlP2gJ35z4LXPzNqSaX2+E4TWeMXxiM/JgfqzSZOm2SsJd > AnQ41r2KRAIdQLuA8uU9OMPrkQUUTbos2azmc1omnEV8ELJZm6lShbUIYKzQueiG > 3t0MoATKq97hWLV/0oG5jIgjmWdIEhIY7hNfdERHU4d62AMPGG113SKUeLeRjOlx > apD2//4sIQSpqxYpA68123E6f6IgC2F2EYhR6o1TThIhVDGuzd8exLfmD/uS/K4= > =9DCZ > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
