On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 11:49:23AM +0300, Tuomo Valkonen wrote: > On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 10:36:48AM +1200, Jonathan wrote: > > That seems reasonable. Just as a little test, how would the last few versions > > have been labelled under this scheme? > > You mean 2rc20030602-2? > > The version number is getting quite long, indeed so maybe a simple > incremented number would be better using this scheme. Not that I > have any plans of changing the version numbering scheme at the > moment.
Yeah, that is quite long... :) Jonathan.
