Tim Peters <tim.one@comcast.net> writes: > That part I didn't grok: why force an artifical version number? I can't > imagine a use for that. The "Rewrote from scratch." checkin comment Brett > will surely make is milestone enough in the CVS log. Bumping the major number makes a more visible change. There is no technical reason to do that, nor one to avoid doing so if you like the visible change. A number of files in the Python CVS do have a 2.x version number; I always wondered why that is. Regards, Martin
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4