-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Il 26/01/2014 01:25, Larry Shaffer ha scritto:
> I don't see anything wrong with the new versioning setup. Just that it's not
> spelled
> out for users. If the user's download page [0] just had a link with the text
> similar
> to "QGIS versions and
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Jonathan Moules <
jonathanmou...@warwickshire.gov.uk> wrote:
> It occurs to me - this is a prime example of how this numbering system is
> confusing to users. Quite a few folks are talking about using 2.1 and how
> something is fixed in it, yet the QGIS webpa
Hi Jonathan,
On Wed, 22. Jan 2014 at 17:11:51 +, Jonathan Moules wrote:
> What was the reasoning behind using odd numbers for development versions?
Just to avoid clashing version numbers. 2.0 is the release, 2.1 is the
version number that development version has and that's going to be relea
It occurs to me - this is a prime example of how this numbering system is
confusing to users. Quite a few folks are talking about using 2.1 and how
something is fixed in it, yet the QGIS webpage only has 2.0 on it. I know I
always hate it when projects do that and wonder why they're not keeping
the
On 20-01-14 15:24, Lester Anderson wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Just a quick query, but what is the current version of QGIS as the
> forums/discussion refer to a versions 2.1 or 2.2 (as due out soon) -
> gets a little confusing? The download option is for 2.0.1
Hi Lester,
see http://qgis.org/en/site/ge
Hi Lester,
Starting with version 2 there is a change in the version policy:
Even version numbers are release versions, odd numbers are developer
versions.
2.0 is the latest official release. 2.1 is now the current developer
release. 2.2 will be released at the end of February. Then we will have
Hi all,
Just a quick query, but what is the current version of QGIS as the
forums/discussion refer to a versions 2.1 or 2.2 (as due out soon) - gets a
little confusing? The download option is for 2.0.1
Cheers
Lester
___
Qgis-user mailing list
Qgis-user@
