wooooo really?
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Murphy McCauley <[email protected] > wrote: > All right; I'm overruled. :) > I've bumped betta's version to 0.1.0. A truly momentous occasion, right? > > -- Murphy > > On Feb 15, 2013, at 11:07 PM, Shabbir Ahmed wrote: > > i vote for version number > > > On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Sam Russell <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I like version numbers - if POX were ever to be productised, it would >> need minor patches, so it'd always need some provision for minor version >> numbers. Ubuntu has cool names, but each one corresponds to a version number >> >> >> On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Murphy McCauley < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Currently, POX has a version number (which has been at 0.0.0 since the >>> beginning of time). >>> >>> I think the time is coming when we should either increment it, or we >>> should kill it and just go by branch name. I am leaning towards the latter >>> since obviously there is no meaningful version numbering going on anyway. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> -- Murphy >> >> >> > >
