On Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 11:13:14AM +0100, Thomas Mueller wrote:
:
:> :Mutt-1.1.8 is out. This is another BETA version. Changes
:> :against 1.1.7 include fixes for one recent and one
:> :long-standing, but mostly unnoticed bug.
:>
:> Just a quick observation. Mutt is one of the few pieces of software
:> that gets full version numbers for betas, versus most conventions that
:> use a next-version-number + "b" + beta-version-number. I just found
:> this practice to be a bit unusual. :)
:
:?? Linux Kernel, Gimp, ... they all use even numbers for stable releases
:and odd numbers for development version.
My history is based from BSD, Apache, BIND, Sendmail, etc. and never
held any numerical favoritism. :-) I actually prefer a major.minor.fix
versioning format.
Besides, when releasing software that is still in beta testing, how do
you count versions according to the Linux kernel way? For example, the
previous Mutt beta was 1.1.7. Since the current release is still beta,
shouldn't it be numbered as 1.1.9 ?
Just curious, this is really new information to me. I feel so clueless...
--
Eugene Lee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
