🚀 go-pugleaf

j-norstad@nwu.edu (John Norstad) writes:

>In article <1992Sep10.104846.26469@rhrk.uni-kl.de>,
>kemper@millelac.rhrk.uni-kl.de (Michael Kemper [Informatik]) wrote:
>> 
>> I think a new version has to be numbered 2.10, hasn't it? Only if there
>> were new features, I would increase the first digit.

>But the Apple version numbering scheme (the "vers" resources) don't go that
>high - they only permit single digits after the decimal point. That's the
>whole problem.

There's a simple way to go to a new numbering scheme and not confuse people
about the "promised" 3.0. Disinfectant 4.0. :-)

Actually, GIFConverter I believe was up to version 2.2.10 or 11. I've got no
problems with that. Although I do share the hopes of many of you about a
really cool Disinfectant, ultimately, I don't use it *that* often, thanks
to good management and Gatekeeper and Disinfectant INIT.

As Disinfectant 2.x isn't *really* "upgraded", rather "updated" with each
new virus, I guess one can argue the next "update" be deemed 2.9.1. As to
bug fixes, you could try 2.9.1a etc. Messy? Yeah, but then I'd already set
aside Disinfectant 3.0 as something special...

Cheers,
Norton