gnupic: gputils 1.0.0 Release Candidate 1


Previous by date: 10 Dec 2012 03:18:28 -0000 Re: gputils 1.0.0 Release Candidate 1, Alain Portal
Next by date: 10 Dec 2012 03:18:28 -0000 Re: gputils 1.0.0 Release Candidate 1, Joe Pfeiffer
Previous in thread: 10 Dec 2012 03:18:28 -0000 Re: gputils 1.0.0 Release Candidate 1, Alain Portal
Next in thread: 10 Dec 2012 03:18:28 -0000 Re: gputils 1.0.0 Release Candidate 1, Joe Pfeiffer

Subject: Re: gputils 1.0.0 Release Candidate 1
From: Peter Stuge ####@####.####
Date: 10 Dec 2012 03:18:28 -0000
Message-Id: <20121210031825.22601.qmail@stuge.se>

Alain Portal wrote:
> > A small idea: Skip the last version number digit and go for 1.0?
> 
> Cleary, not!
> I never heard a such bad idea...
> 
> foo-x.y.z is a rule accepted by all in the community for a very
> long time....
> 
> Why do you want to break it?

x, y and z have no purpose. They are universally only for show.

Microsoft realized that 18 years ago. (Windows 95)

Three feelgood for-show numbers is at least one more than gputils
actually needs, because development is moderate. That is *not* a
bad thing!

Why does anyone want to use an 8-bit machine when a 32-bit machine
can accomplish same task at nearly same cost with nearly same power
consumption?

The answer of course lies in the "nearly" - cut overhead where it
makes sense.


//Peter

Previous by date: 10 Dec 2012 03:18:28 -0000 Re: gputils 1.0.0 Release Candidate 1, Alain Portal
Next by date: 10 Dec 2012 03:18:28 -0000 Re: gputils 1.0.0 Release Candidate 1, Joe Pfeiffer
Previous in thread: 10 Dec 2012 03:18:28 -0000 Re: gputils 1.0.0 Release Candidate 1, Alain Portal
Next in thread: 10 Dec 2012 03:18:28 -0000 Re: gputils 1.0.0 Release Candidate 1, Joe Pfeiffer


Powered by ezmlm-browse 0.20.