On Nov 8, mnb20@??? (Mark Baker) wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Nov 1996, Philip Hazel wrote:
>
> > Hmm. Everybody knows that version 1.00 of anything doesn't work. Perhaps
> > I should call it 1.42? 1.58? 5.8? Exim '97? Nah, don't like any of
> > those...
>
> Or there's always the Microsoft style, aiming for a higher version number
> than any competitor. Exim 9 anyone?
>
Another strategie would be to call it something like 1.04. This would
imply that while 1.0 had a few minor bugs there was nothing that
required the addition of a major revision number. How could you not have
confidence in something that well programmed. ;)
--
Artificial Intelligence stands no chance against Natural Stupidity.
GAT d- -p+(--) c++++ l++ u++ t- m--- W--- !v
b+++ e* s-/+ n-(?) h++ f+g+ w+++ y*
