I think 2.x is more better. may be 10.X is more creative, and has a binary
figure.but will not explain the true meaning
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Adam Moffett adamli...@plexicomm.netwrote:
So next is version 11 and then version 100?
it has been mentioned that 10 is of course 2 ...
From: Pezhman Lali l...@lopl.net
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 5:00 AM
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
asterisk-users@lists.digium.com
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] 10.0.0 better than 2.0.0?
I think 2.x is more better. may be 10.X is more creative
Discussion
asterisk-users@lists.digium.com
*Subject*: Re: [asterisk-users] 10.0.0 better than 2.0.0?
I think 2.x is more better. may be 10.X is more creative, and has a binary
figure.but will not explain the true meaning
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Adam Moffett adamli
So next is version 11 and then version 100?
it has been mentioned that 10 is of course 2 ... think not in base 10
On 22 July 2011 22:26, Matthew J. Rothmr...@imminc.com wrote:
Kevin P. Fleming: The versions all go to ten. Look, right across the
board, ten, ten, ten and...
Asterisk Users:
it has been mentioned that 10 is of course 2 ... think not in base 10
On 22 July 2011 22:26, Matthew J. Roth mr...@imminc.com wrote:
Kevin P. Fleming: The versions all go to ten. Look, right across the
board, ten, ten, ten and...
Asterisk Users: Oh, I see. And most open source projects
I read Kevin's piece in asterisk-announce about the new numbering scheme,
and saw in svn-commits some tagging of 10.0.0-beta1.
Perhaps I'm thick (I hope not!), but I really can't see why calling the
next version 10.0.0 is any better than calling it 2.0.0!
I'm surprised not to have seen ANY talk
I agree, the numbering seems to make no sense. Oh well it's just an
arbitrary measurement of non-progress anyway
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Tony Mountifield t...@mountifield.orgwrote:
I read Kevin's piece in asterisk-announce about the new numbering scheme,
and saw in svn-commits some
I thought it was going to be 1.10.0
From: asterisk-users-boun...@lists.digium.com
[mailto:asterisk-users-boun...@lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of vip killa
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 2:48 PM
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] 10.0.0 better
Hi Tony,
On 07/22/2011 09:44 PM, Tony Mountifield wrote:
I read Kevin's piece in asterisk-announce about the new numbering scheme,
and saw in svn-commits some tagging of 10.0.0-beta1.
Totally missed that one. Just did a quick browse.
Perhaps I'm thick (I hope not!), but I really can't see
...@lists.digium.com] *On Behalf Of *vip killa
*Sent:* Friday, July 22, 2011 2:48 PM
*To:* Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
*Subject:* Re: [asterisk-users] 10.0.0 better than 2.0.0?
I agree, the numbering seems to make no sense. Oh well it's just an
arbitrary measurement of non-progress
Since this change I started measuring temperature in Rankine. Its now
592.67 degrees here (south NJ).
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Tony Mountifield t...@mountifield.org wrote:
I read Kevin's piece in asterisk-announce about the new numbering scheme,
and saw in svn-commits some tagging of
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Norbert Zawodsky norb...@zawodsky.atwrote:
Maybe just a typo ? Misplaced dots between all those 1's and 0's ...
Maybe we should call it version 12 instead of 1100 ;-)
Am 22.07.2011 21:50, schrieb Danny Nicholas:
I thought it was going to be 1.10.0
No,
-Commercial Discussion
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] 10.0.0 better than 2.0.0?
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Norbert Zawodsky norb...@zawodsky.at
wrote:
Maybe just a typo ? Misplaced dots between all those 1's and 0's ...
Maybe we should call it version 12 instead of 1100 ;-)
Am 22.07.2011 21
Kevin P. Fleming: The versions all go to ten. Look, right across the
board, ten, ten, ten and...
Asterisk Users: Oh, I see. And most open source projects upgrade to
two?
Kevin P. Fleming: Exactly.
Asterisk Users: Does that mean it's better? Is it any better?
Kevin P. Fleming: Well, it's eight
14 matches
Mail list logo
