Re: 3.1.7-pre-1 for the workers

[Oliver Kiddle <opk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Peter Stephenson wrote:
> 
> "Bart Schaefer" wrote:
> > 4.0.1 ?  Are we going to skip 4.0.0 this time?  Why?
> 
> Everyone knows versions ending in `0' don't work.  But it's only really
> because I'm one of the few people left who believes first things have a `1'
> at the end.  I have no strong views.

I don't really have any strong views either but it seems a bit unusual.
I often think in terms of count from one and index from zero but I'm not
sure which case I'd consider version numbers to be. I think that the
main problem with calling it 4.0.1 is that some people might assume it
is only a minor release. This might affect how it gets reported on sites
like freshmeat and appwatch.com and possibly cause it to be filtered out
by anyone not interested in minor upgrades.

This reminds me: a number of the files in CVS seem to have a version
number which is something like 1.1.1.1. The CVS info page says something
about this having some special significance but I couldn't work out what
exactly. Does anyone know? When 4.0 is released, it might be a good idea
to advance all the files to be version 4.1 anyway, especially if the
1.1.1 versions would cause problems if we created a branch later.

Oliver Kiddle