< :the previous in number
^ :the list in numerical order
> :the next in number
P :the previous (in thread)
N :the next article (the next thread)
|<:the top of this thread
>|:the next thread
^ :the parent (reply-to)
_:the child (an article replying to this)
>:the elder article having the same parent
<:the youger article having the same parent
---:split window and show thread lists
| :split window (vertically) and show thread lists
~ :close the thread frame
.:the index
..:the index of indices
zuzu <sean.zuzu / gmail.com> wrote in message news:<a988e9f6040712185160cecf19 / mail.gmail.com>...
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 10:37:23 +0900, Francis Hwang <sera / fhwang.net> wrote:
> > I don't think there's any consensus as to what version numbers mean.
> > In the case of Lafcadio I can tell you that although it's not done,
> > it's also used on real systems handling real users and non-trivial
> > volume. (I believe the same can be said for ActiveRecord, too.)
> >
> > The site where I mainly work gets 3m hits/month; that's backed by
> > Lafcadio. In fact I make sure to always have a stable bugfix branch
> > and a dev branch so users can choose their level of risk. I use the
> > stable bugfix branch for that main site.
> >
> > Francis
> >
> to start with, http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/current-stable.html
>
> FreeBSD (perhaps the *BSDs in general) seem to have defined a standard
> for what versioning should mean. not just release vs. current vs.
> stable, but also their numbering.
>
> so patterns exist to stablize what versioning should constitute.
I wasn't saying that patterns don't exist. I was saying that consensus
has not been reached.
Personally, whenever I'm checking out new libraries, I always look for
some sort of statement about whether it's alpha, beta, stable,
whatever. Sometimes that's a note on the web page, or a little tag on
the Sourceforge or Rubyforge page.
Is the Ruby community significantly out of step with the broader free
software community on this?
F.