On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Geert Janssens wrote:
> Op dinsdag 26 december 2017 00:36:04 CET schreef Aaron Laws:
> > Concerning the versioning scheme: I agree that the leading "2" is rather
> > superfluous at this point; if we're not going to use it, get rid of it. I
> > *do* appreciate the even/odd versioning scheme. It has a few strong
> points:
> > 1) it's easy at a glance to tell which version is stable and 2) it's easy
> > to explain and use.
>
> Thanks for your feedback Aaron.
>
> We are used to the even/odd scheme. There are other projects that have
> always
> used the "unstable=.99" scheme. Once you know it it's equally easy to
> explain,
> no ?
> If we would go to a two-number scheme for stable it would feel weird to me
> if
> the first number would distinguish between even and odd, like
> 3.0 is unstable and 4.0 is stable. For me that doesn't work very well.
>
> Geert
>
I re-read your version numbering proposals and on second thought, I agree
that they are simple and effective enough. Again, thanks for your proactive
thoughtfulness.
___
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
