On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Geert Janssens <geert.gnuc...@kobaltwit.be > wrote:
> Op dinsdag 26 december 2017 00:36:04 CET schreef Aaron Laws: > > Concerning the versioning scheme: I agree that the leading "2" is rather > > superfluous at this point; if we're not going to use it, get rid of it. I > > *do* appreciate the even/odd versioning scheme. It has a few strong > points: > > 1) it's easy at a glance to tell which version is stable and 2) it's easy > > to explain and use. > > Thanks for your feedback Aaron. > > We are used to the even/odd scheme. There are other projects that have > always > used the "unstable=.99" scheme. Once you know it it's equally easy to > explain, > no ? > If we would go to a two-number scheme for stable it would feel weird to me > if > the first number would distinguish between even and odd, like > 3.0 is unstable and 4.0 is stable. For me that doesn't work very well. > > Geert > I re-read your version numbering proposals and on second thought, I agree that they are simple and effective enough. Again, thanks for your proactive thoughtfulness. _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel