[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: lynx-dev progress on pre.2

From: purslow
Subject: Re: lynx-dev progress on pre.2
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:26:50 -0500
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.4i

040116 Thomas Dickey wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, [ISO-8859-1] Frédéric L. W. Meunier wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 address@hidden wrote:
>>> occasionally, there mb a special bugfix version eg .
>> ? A bugfix version with a higher number than a dev ?
> I don't know who would do the work to maintain bug-fix versions.

for heavens' sake (attempts a smile):
my point is re version numbers, not the process of development.

as for bugfix numbers, XFCE just released ,
which is explicitly described as a bugfix for 4.0.3 .
XFCE 4.0.1  4.0.2  4.0.3  have contained minor fixes
simpler than those which have characterised Lynx 2.8.5dev.14  15  16  17 ;
the difference between XFCE 4.0 & 4.2 wb roughly equivalent
to that between Lynx 2.8.4 & 2.8.5 .

does anyone else here follow other projects ?

>>> this shd result in distros updating their Lynxes more often.
>> It isn't the version numbering that prevents them from updating it.
>> Actually, nothing does. They could have stable and unstable branches.

(attempts another smile): they are put off by the design'n 'dev',
which in the case of Lynx for several years has not meant 'unstable'.
Lynx 2.8.5dev.16 is perfectly stable -- i use it daily w/o problems -- ,
it's simply an unnecessarily lengthy, misleading & eccentric method
of numbering versions, which needs to be brought upto date.

i'm pleased to note that TD says "yes, maybe".
in the absence of intelligent objections, can we make that a "yes" ?

SUPPORT     ___________//___,  Philip Webb : address@hidden
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|  Centre for Urban & Community Studies
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'  University of Toronto

; To UNSUBSCRIBE: Send "unsubscribe lynx-dev" to address@hidden

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]