-- ********************************************************************************* Daniel Wells, Library Programmer Analyst d...@calvin.edu Hekman Library at Calvin College 616.526.7133 >>> On 1/4/2013 at 3:52 PM, Dan Scott <d...@coffeecode.net> wrote: > In the end, I'd really like to not have this discussion come up on a > regular basis. There's code and docs and tests and websites to be worked > on, and a product that is solid and reliable and easy to understand and > use is going to succeed no matter how much the version numbers diverge > from the scheme documented on a wiki page. And if the current problem > can be rectified by striking out two clauses from the wiki page, why > don't we just do that so we can focus on everything else we have to work > on?
+1! And bravo to Jason S. for taking the initiative to go ahead and change the wiki page to reflect this current reality. Dan P.S. (and apologizes for flippancy, I mean no offense) Or, in honor of the new year, I'd like to suggest we bump the version to 10.0 and start working our way down to 0.0. This plan has the following advantages: - we would probably get the project 15 minutes of fame on Slashdot or something - it meets Galen's monotonicity requirement, so we know he's on board - people would find it really confusing, or maybe exciting - when we reach "0.0", then Evergreen is over and we get to do something else with our lives Who's with me?
