--- Anthony J Bybell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 4 Mar 2006, Tim Freedom wrote: > > > Fair enough, I'm not a windows user - I just wanted to point out > > the various tidbits of info out there regarding GTKWave and how > > confusing it might look to someone looking for an opensource > > alternative. > > Yeah, I agree that it's a bit confusing...a fork, downporting of 2.x > features to 1.3 when 2.x was orphaned, 1.3 really being the "latest", etc. > > > If 2.0.x and 1.3.x have no chance of converging, could we ask them to > > release the name so as to lessen the confusion. In other words, can > > we ask the ATP project to rename their version of the code to say > > GTKasyncWave or something similar... > > Eventually bumping 1.3.x up to 3.x might be the cleanest way of doing it > as anyone looking at version numbers of existing tarballs is going to get > confused.
Great idea - didn't think of that. Do please seriously consider moving in this direction sooner rather then later to put an end to this entire "what is the latest version" mess. I'd suggest simply releasing what you have now as 3.0 to make a clean break/start. Regards, .tf. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
