On 01-06-13 04:15, Mike. wrote: > On 5/31/2013 at 4:56 PM wie...@porcupine.org wrote: > > |After the confusion that Postfix 2.10 is not Postfix 2.1, > ============= > > > In 20/20 hindsight, perhaps Postfix 2.1 should have been Postfix 2.01, > allowing 100 minor versions before the major version was forced to > change.
Wherever I went to school, I cannot remember I was ever taught that 1 equals 10: not decimal, binary, hexadecimal, ... So, personally I find it strange why anyone would think so. A version 'number' is not a decimal; it's a numerical code that tells the user what the version of the software (s)he is using. Every number between the dots stands on it's own, having just this relationship: - they are read from left to right, - increments go from the individual right to left numbers (first patchlevel, then minor version, then major version increments), - the individual numbers always increment, never decrement. To me it seems quite easy to figure out what the latest version is. +1 for keeping the current version scheme intact. -- Rob
