Hi Michiel!
23 May 13 01:05, you wrote to me:
RC>> Thing is; of the three code patches since v3.3, two (v3.3.1 &
RC>> v3.3.2) were changes that (thinking about it) really could or
RC>> should have been minor version changes, rather than just patches
RC>> against the v3.3.0 version, because they did involve
RC>> functionality changes.
MV> Aha. In that case I misunderstood your question. I read it as a call
MV> for what needs to be added.
Oh, we need that as well, which is why I added it as a feature request.
(Although you could have done so as well...)
MV> If however the rule is that a change of functionality should be
MV> signalled with a change in the minor version number, then that is what
MV> should be done.
I think so (and reference, for instance, semver.org) but I'm not the only
one involved.
Jame
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5--b20111217
* Origin: RJC eeePC (1:120/419)
|
