Stephen Warren wrote: > On Mon, June 9, 2008 3:47 am, Andreas Schulz wrote: >> Sorry, please don't take congruity 8/8.1 as my final words - looks like >> I've been a little too keen to get it out.. > > Just a small note on this. > > I'm very happy that people are contributing to congruity, and will > certainly review your changes as soon as I can. > > However, I'd prefer if you didn't label your patches as a "version" of > congruity (i.e. congruity **8/8.1**) since it isn't an official release; > doing so will just cause confusion when version 8 is actually released. > (To avoid this, I guess I'll jump to version 9 when I do next release).
Personally, if the code wasn't downloaded from your site, I would never consider it an actual version (in other words, I doubt it's necessary to skip a release number). But I definitely second that - I wouldn't want someone referring to some patch as the next version of Concordance. One note Stephen - you should probably throw up a quick page about Congruity, what it is, and a link to the latest version. Nothing fancy, just something I can point people to (both in concordance docs/web, as well as to potential packagers). -- Phil Dibowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Open Source software and tech docs Insanity Palace of Metallica http://www.phildev.net/ http://www.ipom.com/ "Never write it in C if you can do it in 'awk'; Never do it in 'awk' if 'sed' can handle it; Never use 'sed' when 'tr' can do the job; Never invoke 'tr' when 'cat' is sufficient; Avoid using 'cat' whenever possible" -- Taylor's Laws of Programming
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php
_______________________________________________ concordance-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/concordance-devel
