Hi,
a piece of software that has been around sind 2006 in now the ninth major
version, should really not be called 2.0. So my vote goes to 10.0 - this much
more indicates the maturity of SMW!
Cheers,
Bernhard
- Ursprüngliche Mail -
Hey,
It seems there is general agreement on
Hi James,
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 11:57 PM, James HK jamesin.hongkon...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
code still responds to the LinksUpdate::doUpdate() call, but it doesn't
seem to do the right thing
If what you are saying is correct (that some information are missing
or not doing the right
The 10.0 versioning makes logical sense, however, 2.0 makes a whole lot more
sense from an end users standpoint. People are going to get confused with the
large jump, and wonder where the other versions are (and may also not
understand why the jump was made).
Also, it maintains some
Hi.
I can also confirm that Approved Revs no longer works with SMW 1.9.
Regards
Neill.
On 20/01/14 14:21, Yaron Koren wrote:
Hi James,
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 11:57 PM, James HK
jamesin.hongkon...@gmail.com mailto:jamesin.hongkon...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
code still responds to
