This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
I have no quibble with everything you said except this:Right, this is the new orthodoxy. :-)
However, "3.5" is a fairly decent version number from a "big change" perspective; it's halfway to 4.0.
Don't perpetuate this pernicious error. Version numbers are not decimal fractions. They are 3-tuples of nonnegative integers, expressed in a convenient shorthand.
Of course, GCC 2.95 and Autoconf 2.50 are evidence that that attitude is not always taken. :-P Generally, version numbering seems to be about appearance as much as (or more than) anything else. You're fighting the 'good fight' against that point of view. I was simply describing what I thought random people's impressions would be.There is no special meaning to a .5 or a .90 or even a .99 release.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |