Re: Updating release version to 22.1

[David Kastrup]

Jérôme Marant <address@hidden> writes:

> address@hidden (Kim F. Storm) writes:
>
>> Choosing a new numbering scheme has been discussed for years now,
>> without making any decisions on what to do.
>>
>> So for the moment, I simply decided to use 22.0.50 for the CVS
>> version as this is in accordance with the current numbering scheme,
>> and all the relevant code assumes this convention.
>>
>> Adapting to whatever new scheme you decide to use will be trivial.
>
> But would probably require a dedicated version comparision algorithm
> to be implemented, which is a complete waste of time.
>
> Almost everyone agreed with using 22.0 because it is obviously
> simple and sane. Why trying to make things more complicated through
> a non-democratic decision?

It is obvious that all that can be said about that matter has been
said and more than that.  There is no use debating this further until
Richard has the time and means to catch up.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum