| 1 |
On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 09:37:59 +0200 (CEST), Alain DIDIERJEAN wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > 2.2, it's listed as ~*2.2.0_alpha41, too early for me. Thanks all for |
| 4 |
> > the help |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Don't let the ridiculous version number fool you, 2.2 has been |
| 7 |
> generally usable for a couple of years. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Oooops, I stupidly thought that "alpha" in version name, which usually |
| 10 |
> doesn't appear, meant a specially risky version in alpha state... Silly |
| 11 |
> me. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I'd say the sillyness is in the version number. 2.2 (we're on 2.2.0 now) |
| 14 |
reached the milestone of 99 release candidates, which is farcical. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
-- |
| 18 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I don't have any solution, but I certainly admire the problem. |
Archives