Re: [dev] [dwm] 2000 SLOC

From: Anselm R Garbe <>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 18:48:24 +0100

On 4 November 2011 11:50, Connor Lane Smith <> wrote:
> On 4 November 2011 09:40, markus schnalke <> wrote:
>> Someone already pointed it out. It actually were suckless projects
>> that did intentionally not care about the meaning of version numbers.
> I agree. I don't even see why we don't just drop the first dot and
> have dwm-60, dmenu-45.

I explained this already. I want to keep this version scheme just for
the sake of conservatism. We don't need to change the versioning
scheme every two years like others (I did it before dwm times quite
often). But once a versioning scheme is in place, we stick to it.

Received on Fri Nov 04 2011 - 18:48:24 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Nov 04 2011 - 19:00:05 CET