> "Lars" == Lars J Aas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> Didn't seem like the version numbering was such a controversial
Lars> and out-debated issue, though. Each choice seemed to have it's
Lars> share of followers.
Right, and I was in favor of 2.15, but French people will tell you we
have
On Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 06:49:44PM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
: If you use Gnus and still don't know about C-d, it's time for a try.
I'm a vi/mutt/trn dude, so no gnus for me.
:Patch Panic
[...]
Didn't seem like the version numbering was such a controversial and
out-debated issue, though.
> "Lars" == Lars J Aas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> OK, I must have snoozed through that one, or maybe I wasn't on
Lars> this list then.
Was between the maintainers.
Lars> What was the conclusion? "Yeay to 2.50"? BTW, if as you say,
Lars> 2.50 is never going to be born, never mind.
On Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 05:47:33PM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
: > "Lars" == Lars J Aas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:
: Lars> On Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 03:31:18PM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
: Lars> : :( 2.50 is never going to be born :( My $2.14a :)
:
: Lars> Let's call it 2.14 (or 2.15 on a
it a "major release").
This issue has already be beaten to death, and I don't think we need
yet another debate. Or indeed, it will be ``no to 2.50'', but with a
much sadder meaning.
On Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 03:31:18PM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
: :( 2.50 is never going to be born :( My $2.14a :)
I for one am against releasing anything called "Autoconf 2.50"
before Autoconf 2.14 through 2.49 has been released. Linux does
the same stupid thing, suddenly jumping to minor rel
