18 Feb
1999
18 Feb
'99
4:48 p.m.
On Thu, Feb 18, 1999 at 05:22:04PM +0100, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Robert OConnor wrote:
Version 1.9 seems "later" than version 1.10.
I agree that 1.10 made me blink confusedly a couple of times too. I'm not advocating necessarily that you go to 2.1, just agreeing that it is confusing.
As sad as it is, I have to agree. I find the 1.10 nomenclature entirely too much like 1.1 ... I think the human brain is just trained to dump trailing zeros after a decimal point. Also, I don't see any reason why it couldn't be called 2.0 with teh new server, and document overhaul? That's more than SOME Software companies put in their 3.5 -> 4.0 upgrade ;-) Chris -- | Christopher Petrilli | petrilli@amber.org