> 1. I'm not sure you're right about 15.53 - the previous stable
> release (for windows at least) was 15.5.
A google search for poplog v15 http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=poplog+v15
does indicate that I was mistaken. But only having one digit for the
release number did lead to kludges like v15.53e etc. Using a full
three-part scheme removes that restriction and makes releasing numbering
very obvious.
> 3. The kind of thing the 'openpoplog' team are thinking about
> probably do warrant a new version number, but my own view is that
> we should also go with a new name and start again at 1 (or 0?) ie
> OpenPoplog 1.0.0
Either that or 15.6.0 for the current version (with "OP 1.1.0" or 15.7.0
respectively for the dev branch).
Ian.
|