I've pushed out a v1.0.0b maint release to fix a bug in HTTP
fetch that was discovered today X-<.
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> I've pushed out a v1.0.0b maint release to fix a bug in HTTP
> fetch that was discovered today X-<.
>
Wouldn't it make more sense for the maintenance release to be 1.0.1?
-hpa
On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 15:12 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > I've pushed out a v1.0.0b maint release to fix a bug in HTTP
> > fetch that was discovered today X-<.
> >
>
> Wouldn't it make more sense for the maintenance release to be 1.0.1?
Seconded. letters in versions are bad. With my MacOS background, for me,
"b" means "beta" :)
Ben.
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >
> > Wouldn't it make more sense for the maintenance release to be 1.0.1?
>
> Seconded. letters in versions are bad. With my MacOS background, for me,
> "b" means "beta" :)
FWIW, thirded. The kernel used to use letters too, and it's cute, but just
using multiple levels of release numbers is much more common.
Linus
On Thursday 22 December 2005 18:46, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > Wouldn't it make more sense for the maintenance release to be 1.0.1?
> > Seconded. letters in versions are bad. With my MacOS background, for me,
> > "b" means "beta" :)
> FWIW, thirded. The kernel used to use letters too, and it's cute, but just
> using multiple levels of release numbers is much more common.
Also sucks because letters after numbers a read as "units".
Just compare 5h, 3kg, 20cm, 9in, 1.3h
Also putting letters after version numbers usally gives me
a feeling that the author is not sure about what he does.
But this is just me, I guess
I hope util-linux is going to learn all that one day :-)
Regards
Ingo Oeser
Ingo Oeser <[email protected]> writes:
> Also sucks because letters after numbers a read as "units".
>
> Just compare 5h, 3kg, 20cm, 9in, 1.3h
If your first reaction after seeing 0.99.7a 0.99.7b 0.99.7c was
that they were numbers in unrelated units a b c and cannot be
compared with each other, you need to get your head examined ;-).
I concede that it is a cute point you tried to make [*1*], but I
do not think your presentation was convincing enough.
[Footnote]
*1* Which one is the heaviest, 5h, 3kg, or 20cm?
Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> *1* Which one is the heaviest, 5h, 3kg, or 20cm?
>
5h, without a doubt. Because time can be broken down into infinitely
small pieces and encompasses all the matter in the universe it will
always be heavier and larger than any measurement relating to 3
dimensions or less.
Beware of rhetorical questions around people with hangovers in a
philosohopical mood. ;)
--
Andreas Ericsson [email protected]
OP5 AB http://www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231
Andreas Ericsson <[email protected]> writes:
>> *1* Which one is the heaviest, 5h, 3kg, or 20cm?
>>
>
> 5h, without a doubt. Because time can be broken down into infinitely
> small pieces
This is uncertain. If the time is quantified 5 hrs might as well contain
much less quanta than 3 kg, let alone 20 cm :-)
--
Krzysztof Halasa
Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
>
> This is uncertain. If the time is quantified 5 hrs might as well contain
> much less quanta than 3 kg, let alone 20 cm :-)
You're forgetting that if time is quantized, it's as part of a general
quantization of space-time. Thus, there would be as many quanta in 5
hrs as in 539,626,442,400,000 cm.
-hpa