Hi Michiel!

23 May 13 01:05, you wrote to me:

 RC>>    Thing is; of the three code patches since v3.3, two (v3.3.1 &
 RC>> v3.3.2) were changes that (thinking about it) really could or
 RC>> should have been minor version changes, rather than just patches
 RC>> against the v3.3.0 version, because they did involve
 RC>> functionality changes.

 MV> Aha. In that case I misunderstood your question. I read it as a call
 MV> for what needs to be added.

   Oh, we need that as well, which is why I added it as a feature request.
(Although you could have done so as well...)



 MV>  If however the rule is that a change of functionality should be
 MV> signalled with a change in the minor version number, then that is what
 MV> should be done.

   I think so (and reference, for instance, semver.org) but I'm not the only
one involved.



Jame


--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5--b20111217
 * Origin: RJC eeePC (1:120/419)