On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 09:50:56AM -0800, Craig Hughes wrote:
> I spent about 10 seconds thinking about this after I released it, and
> realized I can just call the next one 2.20 and everyone will be happy
> snappy.
>
I named 2.1 as 2.10 for Debian. It's a bit wierd at first, but you get used
to
On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 06:51, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> The RPM should be called 2.1.1 (or 2.1_1), but the perl version is right
> at 2.11.
Doesn't matter if I go to 2.20 next.
C
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourcefo
I spent about 10 seconds thinking about this after I released it, and
realized I can just call the next one 2.20 and everyone will be happy
snappy.
C
On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 05:15, Shane Williams wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> On Sun, 3 Mar 2002, Craig R Hughes wrote:
>
> > I ju
On Mon, 4 Mar 2002, Shane Williams wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> On Sun, 3 Mar 2002, Craig R Hughes wrote:
>
> > I just pushed out the new scores (and a bugfix or two) as 2.11
>
> I know we beat the version numbering horse nearly to death a while
> back, but shouldn't this eithe
