>
>| In the proposed method we will simply have
>| 1.2.x for the the stable and 1.3.x for the development, with backports to
>| update the older version, the transition will be to rename 1.1.6 to 1.2.0
>| when the time comes for its release and the new devel version will be
>| 1.3.0.
>
> You need to read a bit in the old mail-archive.
> (short: we used to do it like this...gave us too long development
> cycles)
I really don't understand why this should give longer developement series???
We just work as now, and only on release we change the version number and
then we can release fixes as 1.2.x instead of 1.1.6fixXXX, just a mean of
numbering no change of policy, please tell me if I'm wrong and maybe the
numbering scheme makes some of us work slower :)
Jürgen
--
-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._
Dr. Jürgen Vigna E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Italienallee 13/N Tel/Fax: +39-0471-450260 / +39-0471-450296
I-39100 Bozen Web: http://www.sad.it/~jug
-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._
I've always made it a solemn practice to never drink anything stronger
than tequila before breakfast.
-- R. Nesson
