Re: lynx-dev progress on pre.2

[purslow]

040117 Stef Caunter wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2004, [ISO-8859-1] Frédéric L. W. Meunier wrote:
>>  http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-12/msg00334.html
> Can this kind of perception be changed by following
> Philip's original suggestion to make 2.8.5 ship as 2.9?

i assume they're refering to 2.8.4 , which was the last numbered version
& which cannot have come out much later than 2001 .

really, the responses -- basically from  2  people -- are not sensible.
look at XFCE, look at the Linux kernel, look at many other projects:
they number their releases 'x.y.z', where 'x' is a revolutionary change,
'y' is a major new release & 'z' is the latest version on offer.
there mb small variants & a few 'rc' or 'pre' versions,
but they don't have interminable series of 'x.y.zdev.n' releases,
which in the case of Lynx are nearly always fully usable & quite stable.

back when i first blundered into lynx.dev 9609, '2.6' had just come out.
it had been released too quickly by a frantic Foteos Macrides
& contained many bugs, which required a new version '2.7' c 9702.
subseq'ly, there were versions '2.7.1' & '2.7.2' fairly quickly, then '2.8'.
there were a few 'pre' or 'rc' versions shortly before these releases,
but nothing like the series of  17  (so far) '2.8.5devs'.

somehow the numbering system got distorted & has remained so for years.
can we please get it back to sanity?  that's all: i leave it to TD.

-- 
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT     ___________//___,  Philip Webb : address@hidden
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|  Centre for Urban & Community Studies
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'  University of Toronto

; To UNSUBSCRIBE: Send "unsubscribe lynx-dev" to address@hidden