[ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.0.0b quickfix

[ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.0.0b quickfix

[Junio C Hamano]

I've pushed out a v1.0.0b maint release to fix a bug in HTTP
fetch that was discovered today X-<.

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.0.0b quickfix

[H. Peter Anvin]

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

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.0.0b quickfix

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

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.

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.0.0b quickfix

[Linus Torvalds]

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

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.0.0b quickfix

[Ingo Oeser]

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

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.0.0b quickfix

[Junio C Hamano]

Ingo Oeser <ioe-lkml@rameria.de> 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?

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.0.0b quickfix

[Andreas Ericsson]

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                   andreas.ericsson@op5.se
OP5 AB                             www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225                  Fax: +46 8-230231

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.0.0b quickfix

[Krzysztof Halasa]

Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se> 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

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.0.0b quickfix

[H. Peter Anvin]

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