040117 Stef Caunter wrote: > On Sat, 17 Jan 2004, [ISO-8859-1] Fr�d�ric L. W. Meunier wrote: >> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-12/msg00334.html > Can this kind of perception be changed by following > Philip's original suggestion to make 2.8.5 ship as 2.9?
i assume they're refering to 2.8.4 , which was the last numbered version & which cannot have come out much later than 2001 . really, the responses -- basically from 2 people -- are not sensible. look at XFCE, look at the Linux kernel, look at many other projects: they number their releases 'x.y.z', where 'x' is a revolutionary change, 'y' is a major new release & 'z' is the latest version on offer. there mb small variants & a few 'rc' or 'pre' versions, but they don't have interminable series of 'x.y.zdev.n' releases, which in the case of Lynx are nearly always fully usable & quite stable. back when i first blundered into lynx.dev 9609, '2.6' had just come out. it had been released too quickly by a frantic Foteos Macrides & contained many bugs, which required a new version '2.7' c 9702. subseq'ly, there were versions '2.7.1' & '2.7.2' fairly quickly, then '2.8'. there were a few 'pre' or 'rc' versions shortly before these releases, but nothing like the series of 17 (so far) '2.8.5devs'. somehow the numbering system got distorted & has remained so for years. can we please get it back to sanity? that's all: i leave it to TD. -- ========================,,============================================ SUPPORT ___________//___, Philip Webb : [EMAIL PROTECTED] ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Centre for Urban & Community Studies TRANSIT `-O----------O---' University of Toronto ; To UNSUBSCRIBE: Send "unsubscribe lynx-dev" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
