On Mon 21 Mar 2016 at 14:42:21 -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote: > I strongly agree. How about just giving it a date rather than a version > number? You can still bump the date only when something significant > changes. Then scripts can just numerically require that NBSH > 20160401 > or the like. That makes a lot of sense to me. Starting at or near 1.0 would seem to imply that sh is fairly new and didn't have many previous versions, which is untrue. -Olaf. -- ___ Olaf 'Rhialto' Seibert -- The Doctor: No, 'eureka' is Greek for \X/ rhialto/at/xs4all.nl -- 'this bath is too hot.'
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature