Re[2]: Version number nonsense (Re: The Bat! 3.98.2.2 resolves the editor save issue)

Hello Alexander, >> Is not version numbering used to note how much work was done in the >> release? > It would be entirely new to me that there are strict guidelines how > developers should use version numbering. :-) Yes, there are. The RFC rules for version numbering can be found here: http://w

Re[2]: Version number nonsense (Re: The Bat! 3.98.2.2 resolves the editor save issue)

Hello Thomas, > On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 08:24:56 -0500 GMT (04/03/2007, 20:24 +0700 GMT), > Vili wrote: V>> Yes, there are. The RFC rules for version numbering can be found here: V>> http://www.thebat.hu/rfc_version_numbering.html > Tricked in the middle of March, long before April fool's day. I > disc

Re[2]: Version number nonsense (Re: The Bat! 3.98.2.2 resolves the editor save issue)

Hello MAU, >>> Yes, there are. The RFC rules for version numbering can be found here: >>> http://www.thebat.hu/rfc_version_numbering.html >> lol Vili!!! > Shall we kill him? Only virtually, of course ;-) : -- Vili The Bat 3.86.03 ALPHA (beta) on Windows XP 5.1 2600 Szervizcsomag 2 ___

Re[2]: Version number nonsense (Re: The Bat! 3.98.2.2 resolves the editor save issue)

Hello Alexander, >>> Is not version numbering used to note how much work was done in the release? >>> It would be entirely new to me that there are strict guidelines how >>> developers should use version numbering. :-) >> Yes, there are. The RFC rules for version numbering can be found here:

Re[2]: Version number nonsense (Re: The Bat! 3.98.2.2 resolves the editor save issue)

Hello Thomas, V>> Come on guys, a little sense of humor... > All is fine. I understood your intentions correctly from the > beginning, only my posting came over too dry. ;-) Than everything is fine :) -- Vili Current beta is 3.98.03 |