From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-03 11:00:09
Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> and what's wrong with 3.1.50?
>> at least we don't think two _different_ things are the same
>
> Except that number which increases too often becomes not very meaningfull to
> users. Maybe, we should be using internal "revision" number which is not
> exposed in any way.
I don't understand your concern, not at all. Here we have evidence
in front of us that a change in the version number would've been
meaningful.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com