Incidentally, had we ever reached a consensus on calling this release 0.41.0 rather than 0.41? A _LOT_ of people seem to be reading 0.40 as 0.4.0, so making the .0 explicit would remove the ambiguity...
-mental
On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 12:53:17 -0600, Bob Jamison <rjamison@...357...> wrote:
mental@...3... wrote:
Incidentally, had we ever reached a consensus on calling this release 0.41.0 rather than 0.41? A _LOT_ of people seem to be reading 0.40 as 0.4.0, so making the .0 explicit would remove the ambiguity...
-mental
Sounds good to me, at least.
Does not sound like a good idea to me. If we decide to bow to those who called the previous one 0.4, then we need to release 0.4.1. If we decide to keep our own scheme, it needs to be 0.41. What you propose (0.41.0) does neither, and is too clumsy and redundant.
I'm for 0.41.
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 mental@...3... wrote:
Incidentally, had we ever reached a consensus on calling this release 0.41.0 rather than 0.41? A _LOT_ of people seem to be reading 0.40 as 0.4.0, so making the .0 explicit would remove the ambiguity...
Yeah I grit my teeth each time I see it referred to as 0.4, but it didn't seem to cause any harm beyond that. We'll have nine releases before it becomes an issue again, anyway. I think 0.41 should be sufficient.
Bryce
participants (4)
-
unknown＠example.com -
Bob Jamison -
Bryce Harrington -
bulia byak