On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 02:47:15PM +0200, Reini Urban wrote: >Karl M schrieb: >>What about calling it B21? ":> > >As already discussed on cygwin-talk and as officially described on the >webpage, "B" stood for Beta that times (up to 1998). > >We are already stable since a few years, though we use uneven version >numbers, marking it as developer releases. > ><fun> >So we could use "S1511" (stable 1.5.11) >or "SS1511" (standalone stable 1.5.11) > - I obviously watched a lot of world war movies. ></fun> > >Go with the Redhat scheme and use "Cygwin 1.6.0".
Please don't do this. Red Hat is using the even numbers. I don't know if there is already a 1.6.0 or not but there's certainly no reason to irritate the organization which is providing the network bandwidth for the cygwin release. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/