On Wednesday, July 06, 2005, at 02:01 PM, Avi Yashar wrote: > That is not exactly correct. If you recall, 3.5.30 was followed by > 3.5.0.31 (or something like that). And it was not the first time > this has happened. So I am only proposing that a clear and > consistent system be adopted.
Again, check the thread. This was later corrected. Note that the release version before 3.51 was 3.5.36. Maxim made a mistake in the version number. It was not indicated as such but pounced on as being a change in version numbering. 9Val later said it was an error and the next version was 3.5.32. > Nothing is stopping RL from releasing 3.5.38. Why must RL go from > 3.5 to 3.51? It makes no sense to me. Like I said, this is not > mathematics. Either change the third group of digits or go from 3.5 > to 3.6. :) I guess TB! is working very, very well for you then. >> If you've installed the latest MSI, open the readme file in the >> installation directory and follow the version numbering from TB!'s >> earliest versions. There has always been a mathematical progression in >> version numbering. > Yes and no. Take for example the series: 1.1 to 1.101 to 1.14 to 1.15. > Now that might be mathematical, but surely you can see that the 1.101 > stands out and is confusing. Why couldn't it have been 1.11 or 1.12 or > 1.13? Who cares in so long as they stick to some progression/system. That's really a small point there. You do seem to see my point though that there's a mathematical progression in their system. >> Proposing that 3.10 follow 3.9 would certainly take them way off >> course with how they've been doing their numbering. > I don't think so. It is just a different way of looking at that > numbering. .. which is different from how they've always looked at it. Here you are saying that 1.1 to 1.101 to 1.14 to 1.15 should be 1.1 to 1.11 to 1.14 to 1.15, and then you're proposing that they depart from their time honoured system. > Perhaps the main exception would be the peculiar 1.101 that > I mentioned above. But, looking at the readme file, I see several > styles of version numbering: > 1.xx.xx > 1.xx Build > 1.xx Preview Yes. But all follow simple mathematical progression. They've never deviated. No sense in deviating now. No need to. 3.5 should have been 3.50 to make the numbers look more consistent in syntax. That's all. No need for anything else. Manuel has the correct proposal to fit TB!'s current version numbering system. > Like I said, that is just one way of looking at things - and not > really the most significant way of looking at things, in my opinion. If they are just different ways without any difference in value, then who really cares? What would changing it do but disrupt? > But there need not be a conflict here. The simple solution would > have been to number this release as 3.5.38 or 3.6. That would have > satisfied both of us. Me? I'm far more concerned with IMAP than version numbers. Believe me. So much more concerned in fact, that version numbering issues amount to light conversation. I laughed initially because it was something I didn't really care about either way. > Again, what system? The system of numbering has changed many times. There are specific trends that change. However, there's a general trend that doesn't. If you can't see the general trend, then so be it. > Allie, you see a system where I see a hodgepodge. As I said, so be it. > I think you give too much importance to this weak mathematical > thread (that RL has not been consistent in following anyway... as > you well know... 3.5.0.31 being a recent example). <chuckle> Actually, I don't. Come to think of it, I should not have commented in the first place. > Yes... but do you really think it will get that far before RL hits > us up for another donation? ;-) So is that where you're coming from?? If RIT want a donation, they'll just ask for it. They may come up with upgrade protection soon. -- -= Allie M.=- Using TB! v3.51 Sytem Specs: http://specs.aimlink.name =-=-= ...Get the facts first - you can distort them later! ________________________________________________________ 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/
