Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email firstname.lastname@example.org
From: Charles Marcus (CMarcusMedia-Brokers.com)
Date: Sat Jun 01 2013 - 06:59:55 CDT
On 2013-06-01 7:35 AM, Rob Sterenborg (lists) <listssterenborg.info> wrote:
> Wherever I went to school, I cannot remember I was ever taught that 1
> equals 10: not decimal, binary, hexadecimal, ... So, personally I find
> it strange why anyone would think so.
> A version 'number' is not a decimal; it's a numerical code that tells
> the user what the version of the software (s)he is using.
So maybe the simplest solution that would have the least impact is to
use all three point release numbers, even for the first iteration.
Ie, for new minor releases, like 2.10, instead of just calling it 2.10,
call it 2.10.0.
That said, while I really hate the new 'fast release' models for Firefox
(started by Chrome I guess), I also disagree that an increment of the
major version number should be relegated only to 'complete rewrites', or
such massive changes that the new version doesn't really resemble the
In my opinion, the addition of a new feature like postscreen is
sufficient to warrant incrementing the major version number.
If you *never* increment it, what purpose does it serve? May as well
leave it off as Wietse said, basically resulting in a new 'fast release'
scheme like Firefox/Chrome...