On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > This should be safe enough despite all the mathed and frontends changes.
>
> Well, we certainly try not to break things but the changes have not been
> tested at all...
Until yesterdays changes mathed seemed okay. I haven't tested yesterdays
but changes prior to them seemed safe enough and didn't appear to have
broken anything.
> We could perhaps talk about a 1.1.6<your_favourite_suffix_here> or even
> 1.1.7 but calling the beast 1.2.0 is simply misleading.
1.2.0 is the first in yet another release numbering change. This was
first explained on this list and then in LDN way back in October.
It would be more misleading to call it 1.1.7 since we've been telling
everyone for 4 months that the number sequence would change to something
less confusing.
1.2.0 isn't misleading at all -- under the new release numbering scheme:
1.2.0 is equivalent to 1.1.7
1.2.1 is equivalent to 1.1.7fix1
1.3.0 is equivalent to 1.1.8
The old numbering scheme _ended_ with 1.1.6. It is no more. Gone. Kaput.
This isn't a linux kernel numbering scheme.
Take a look at the mail archives or at the LDN archives.
There are no major releases in the new scheme just releases and
prereleases. Maybe we'll release a 2.0 one day and that might be a called
a major release. Also the days of odd/even meaning different things ended
in September 1999.
Allan. (ARRae)
