Re: [MiNT] FreeMiNT 1.15.1m

[Maurits van de Kamp <maurits@bassment.demon.nl>]

On Tue, 11 May 1999, Michael Schwingen wrote:

> > I think that this recent official release should have been labeled with
> > 1.16 at least. The reason for this is that MiNT version is stored in the
> 
> Agreed. Without thinking about version numbers in cookies, I think there is
> simply no need for a three-level version - we could simply call this 1.16,
> and number the betas as 1.16.1, 1.16.2, ...

I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that in the major.minor.revision
numbering scheme, a change in major or minor indicates a change in
functionality, and a change in revision only indicates bugfixes,
optimizations, in other words "transparent" changes. This matches the fact
that the revision number can't be seen in the cookie (since it doesn't
matter to the other programs anyway), but I don't think it's a good idea
to use it for beta numbering. Revisions can be real (not beta-) releases.

Having said this, I do agree that the current 1.15.1 is more of a 1.16 :)
And if Martin-Eric's probs can be fixed in the kernel, that would make a
fine 1.16.1. :)

..and that probably some of the 1.14 "revisions" should have had different
numbers already..;)