I read about users confusion with wine version numbering scheme.
Personally, I would redirect these confused users to the wiki page at
wikipedia where it discusses what the numbers mean in a software
version numbering scheme.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_version
The MAME project had the
90 percent of statistics don't contain a 0 either! Whoops... Jokes aside, I
was answering some wine related question on Ubuntuforums.org and came across
this, many light users tend to do it. I even thought of it that way when I
first learned about the common linux versioning system. I don't think
On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 20:13 +0100, Marcus Meissner wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 10:53:51AM -0800, Scott Ritchie wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 09:40 -0600, John Smith wrote:
> > > Maybe this would be unworkable in git or whatnot but perhaps always
> > > making the minor version field double d
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 10:53:51AM -0800, Scott Ritchie wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 09:40 -0600, John Smith wrote:
> > Maybe this would be unworkable in git or whatnot but perhaps always
> > making the minor version field double digit would do the trick?
>
> How about we make the next version
On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 09:40 -0600, John Smith wrote:
> Maybe this would be unworkable in git or whatnot but perhaps always
> making the minor version field double digit would do the trick?
How about we make the next version Wine 0.9.99.01?
Or how about we make the next version 1.0 ;)
Thanks,
Sc
Ack in my previous message I was speaking of 99 minor versions not
revisions, sorry for the typo!
John
On 2/16/07, John Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Maybe this would be unworkable in git or whatnot but perhaps always making
the minor version field double digit would do the trick?
0.9.03
Maybe this would be unworkable in git or whatnot but perhaps always making
the minor version field double digit would do the trick?
0.9.03
0.9.09
0.9.10
...
0.9.30
etc
this would fix the sorting problems that arise from going from single to
double digit names in most programs too. As long as th
Scott Ritchie wrote:
> On several occasions I have received emails referring to Wine version
> 0.9.3. One person even told me about a regression from 0.9.28 to 0.9.3.
>
> Presumably, this version is being confused with Wine 0.9.30 in these
> letters, however I have been unable to tell whether pe
"Scott Ritchie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 09:48 +0200, SorinN wrote:
If I presume correct, instead of changing numbering system - maybe is
better to explain this system to users - somewhere on first page -
first paragraph - on Wine HQ - and on Synaptic ( or other package
On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 09:48 +0200, SorinN wrote:
> If I presume correct, instead of changing numbering system - maybe is
> better to explain this system to users - somewhere on first page -
> first paragraph - on Wine HQ - and on Synaptic ( or other package
> managers where Details appear ).
>
I
mr. Scott,
I am a wine user for long time - I understand from start that actual
system is not a decimal system - but a numbering one - so for me the
difference between 0.9.3. and 0.9.30 is the difference between 3 and
30.
If I presume correct, instead of changing numbering system - maybe is
be
Friday February 16 2007 05:53、Scott Ritchie さんは書きました:
> On several occasions I have received emails referring to Wine version
> 0.9.3. One person even told me about a regression from 0.9.28 to 0.9.3.
>
> Presumably, this version is being confused with Wine 0.9.30 in these
> letters, however I have
On several occasions I have received emails referring to Wine version
0.9.3. One person even told me about a regression from 0.9.28 to 0.9.3.
Presumably, this version is being confused with Wine 0.9.30 in these
letters, however I have been unable to tell whether people were ACTUALLY
using 0.9.3 o
13 matches
Mail list logo
