Hello 9Val! On Monday, June 27, 2005, 4:06 AM, you wrote:
MB>> Whereas, Maxim had been announcing the previous few betas, 3.5.25, MB>> 3.5.26-29, and 3.5.30. MB>> So, I think 9Val did the misnumbering--or at the very least failed to MB>> catch it, of this beta 3.5.0.31--because he had been away and the MB>> change to th more "realistic" numbering system either escaped his MB>> notice or he had a temporary lapse, a typo sort of thing, when he MB>> either received the rar numbered with 0 (like 3.5.0.14 was), or MB>> actually typed it in while writing his part of the code for 3.5.0.31 MB>> ([3.5.31], as I agree with you and others that it *should* be numbered.) > That's my fault, numbering system was changed and I without informing > about it thought, that missing zero was a typo. ... You're a real sweetie. It was a natural thing to have happen. And, I didn't mind, personally, because I knew what was meant--that we were proceeding from .30 to .31. > ... BTW, current numbering > system doesn't satisfy me, IMHO, it should be something like this: > 3.50.31 (third zero jumped to second number), so if new release > wouldn't have enough changes to be 3.6, it could be numbered 3.51.xx. > I think it wouldn't be easy to end-user to understand if 3.5.45 is a > new release or still 3.5.3x fixes beta without being participated in > beta-testing. This is an important point. For myself, I will be happy with whatever system the development team decides to use. At present--just speaking for my own head--I keep the order straight in my own perception by reading the last 2 digits. :) -- Best regards, Mary The Bat 3.5.0.31 on Windows XP 5.1 2600 Service Pack 2 ________________________________________________________ Current beta is 3.5.31 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
