On 7/6/05, Allie Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wednesday, July 06, 2005, at 01:48 PM, Manuel Breitfeld > wrote: > > > Without having read the whole thread, I just want to point out, that it's > > not > > always that mathematical and therefore logical as you did point out. > > CVS's numbering system for instance goes like this 1.1 ... 1.9 .... 1.10 > > .... > > 1.19 .... 1.20. > > That's the "opposite" of the way you described. > > I've been referring to TB!'s version numbering and not version > numbering in general. > > TB!'s version numbering has never really followed the CVS numbering > method. It has always been a mathematical progression.
Again, Allie, that is not entirely true. 3.5.0.31 does not mathematically follow 3.5.30. And it really makes little sense to suggest that TB has had any kind of consistent versioning system. So, when TB is often quick to champion ISO, why not accept - or at least adhere to - one simple and consistent versioning system such as the CVS numbering system? Sometimes you just have to reevaluate and change your system. After redoing the GUI, why not adopt a clear and comprehensible versioning system? Is anyone or anything stopping RL? Will it cause their sales to decrease? Will it cause people to lose faith in the program? Sorry, Allie, but I just don't follow why you are so dogmatic on this point. -- Avi Yashar Windows XP Pro SP2 and The Bat! Pro (No OTFE) 3.51 ________________________________________________________ Current beta is 3.51 | '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/
