Congratulations to PLT on another great Racket release.
I'm kinda curious why this was 5.1.2 rather than 5.2. Perhaps someone could explain the version number conventions when they get a chance? I don't know enough about the current release process, but were I to guess... Making each periodic release a two-part version number would save the third part of the version number for urgent bugfix releases that cannot wait for a periodic release. No need for a value judgment on whether a given periodic release rates a two-digit or a three-digit version number; the only question is whether you want to bump the first part of the version number for some reason (e.g., to reflect huge changes, or for marketing). Two seems more agile than three, when, say, I have a dependency on "racket/places", and want to specify the minimum Racket version I require (i.e., "5.2" rather than "5.1.2"). Just a question or suggestion.
-- http://www.neilvandyke.org/ _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
