On 2008-01-16, at 09:08, David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 11:54:27AM -0600, Peter da Silva wrote:
On 2008-01-15, at 10:26, David Cantrell wrote:
I thought I'd already explained that the difference between 1.02 and
1.03 is a bug fix.
So 1.02 is 1.0.2?
No, it's 1.02. These days I eschew complex version numbers precisely
because of the Hate being emitted in this thread.
If you've chosen to make it "1.02" instead of "1.2" or for that
matter "2" you've chosen not to eschew complex version numbers.
I've done that as well, just using a release number, starting at one,
incrementing by 1.
No I'm not. 1.09 is followed by 1.10.
Or "1.9" is followed by "2.0", or "9" is followed by "10".
If you're not assigning meaning to version numbers, why bother with
the period at all?
