Mon, 19 Jun 2000 20:59:07 -0500, Matt Harden [EMAIL PROTECTED] pisze:
Numbers ending in ".0" are counterintuitive to me.
So start with ".1" :-)
As Linux kernel.
(I see nothing wrong with ".0".)
--
__(" Marcin Kowalczyk * [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://qrczak.ids.net.pl/
\__/GCS/M
Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote,
The scheme is good - although, I basically have the same
comments as Michael:
* It is simpler to parse the version numbers if stable
versions at patchlevel 0 also include the patchlevel.
You shouldn't *have* to parse anything after the x.yy,
On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 04:38:21 -0700, Simon Marlow wrote:
Ok, here's my proposal for the version numbering issue. I think we should
bite the bullet and fix the numbering scheme to something sensible now, even
though it means changing version 4.07 to be called 4.08. Any objections?
Michael Weber wrote:
Is there a reason, why omitting z if zero? Making the version number
*always* a triple "x.yy.z" is a) more consistent, b) easier to parse
(you can rely on having three dot-separated fields and c) additionally
a good break, since version numbers up to now are only pairs
