gnupic: gputils 1.0.0 Release Candidate 1


Previous by date: 10 Dec 2012 22:52:04 -0000 Re: gputils 1.0.0 Release Candidate 1, Gál Zsolt
Next by date: 10 Dec 2012 22:52:04 -0000 Re: [Spam] Re: gputils 1.0.0 Release Candidate 1, Dennis Crawley
Previous in thread: 10 Dec 2012 22:52:04 -0000 Re: gputils 1.0.0 Release Candidate 1, Gál Zsolt
Next in thread: 10 Dec 2012 22:52:04 -0000 Re: gputils 1.0.0 Release Candidate 1, Borut Ražem

Subject: Re: gputils 1.0.0 Release Candidate 1
From: Peter Stuge ####@####.####
Date: 10 Dec 2012 22:52:04 -0000
Message-Id: <20121210225200.29687.qmail@stuge.se>

Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> > Sure, just like 1.0.0.0.1 is sufficient. My point is that the number
> > of zeros between those two ones is quite arbitrary.
> 
> A large number of projects have settled on x.y.z because it gives a
> useful big, medium, or small indication of the level of changes just
> by glancing at the two versions.

I do not disagree with making gputils 1.0 at this point, but I for
one don't consider 0.15 vs. 1.0 to be a "big" level change. A lot
of code is still the same. (That is not a bad thing.)


> 42 versus 43 could be anything, 2.2.13 versus 3.0.1 would be of the
> magnitude of one big change.

I hope it is clear that "big" is subjective. So the numbers really
can't succeed in accomplishing what you and Alain suggest. I sure
wish it were that simple, but I don't think it is.


//Peter

Previous by date: 10 Dec 2012 22:52:04 -0000 Re: gputils 1.0.0 Release Candidate 1, Gál Zsolt
Next by date: 10 Dec 2012 22:52:04 -0000 Re: [Spam] Re: gputils 1.0.0 Release Candidate 1, Dennis Crawley
Previous in thread: 10 Dec 2012 22:52:04 -0000 Re: gputils 1.0.0 Release Candidate 1, Gál Zsolt
Next in thread: 10 Dec 2012 22:52:04 -0000 Re: gputils 1.0.0 Release Candidate 1, Borut Ražem


Powered by ezmlm-browse 0.20.