dce@mips.UUCP (04/08/87)
In article <317@dcl-csvax.comp.lancs.ac.uk> stephen@comp.lancs.ac.uk (Stephen J. Muir) writes: >A few things. First, I would like to thank Rick and Lennart for obsoleting my >original patches. Secondly, I must object to people referring to >"news 2.11.6". There is no such thing (according to the message I get when >I send the "version" control message to my news system). Thirdly, it seems a I agree that there is no such thing, but we don't seem to have a naming convention for patches, and it is quite often the case that a bug/feature may appear/disappear during a patch, as opposed to a major change (like going from 2.10.2 to 2.10.3). Here's a suggestion. Since 2.11 is really the first sub-version of news 2.11, we can also call it 2.11.1 (note that I say "also", which implies that 2.11 is the same as 2.11.1 until 2.11.2 is available). Patches are sub-subversions, so the currently up-to-date system would be called 2.11.1.7, which can be read as "2.11 + patches up to #7". This also brings up the idea of "significant digits". That is, if I talk about "news 2.11", I am talking about a general feature/problem with all sub-versions of 2.11. If someone says "that was fixed in 2.11.1.9", I'll know that the bug fix is specifically in patch #9. -- David Elliott {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!decwrl!mips!dce
page@ulowell.UUCP (04/09/87)
It's amazing what people can find to argue about.
..Bob
--
Bob Page, U of Lowell CS Dept. page@ulowell.{uucp,edu,csnet}