[Lynx-dev] Re: version numbering and tarball format

[Thorsten Glaser]

Larson, Timothy E. dixit:

>Thorsten Glaser <> wrote:
>> I'd be all in favour of calling the next release 3.00 and then going
>> on from there numerically (3.01, 3.02, etc.) with only one decimal dot
>> in the version number ☺  

>Egads, no.  That system is ambiguous, and usually means I have to make
>my brain reparse the string as 3.0.1, 3.0.2, etc. Keep it
>Major.Minor.Patch please!

No, the idea was to have major.minor and go straight from 3.00 to 3.99.

>I understand the usage of a 4th level for dev/beta/prerelease
>versioning.

I actually don’t – that’s what the 3rd level (patchlevel) is for.

bye,
//mirabilos
-- 
[...] if maybe ext3fs wasn't a better pick, or jfs, or maybe reiserfs, oh but
what about xfs, and if only i had waited until reiser4 was ready... in the be-
ginning, there was ffs, and in the middle, there was ffs, and at the end, there
was still ffs, and the sys admins knew it was good. :)  -- Ted Unangst über *fs