+1 Version numbers On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 5:35 AM, Shabbir Ahmed <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>> >>> >> >> >
-- Christian
