Hi Michiel!   
      
   23 May 13 01:05, you wrote to me:   
      
    RC>>    Thing is; of the three code patches since v3.3, two (v3.3.1 &   
    RC>> v3.3.2) were changes that (thinking about it) really could or   
    RC>> should have been minor version changes, rather than just patches   
    RC>> against the v3.3.0 version, because they did involve   
    RC>> functionality changes.   
      
    MV> Aha. In that case I misunderstood your question. I read it as a call   
    MV> for what needs to be added.   
      
      Oh, we need that as well, which is why I added it as a feature request.   
   (Although you could have done so as well...)   
      
      
      
    MV>  If however the rule is that a change of functionality should be   
    MV> signalled with a change in the minor version number, then that is what   
    MV> should be done.   
      
      I think so (and reference, for instance, semver.org) but I'm not the only   
   one involved.   
      
      
      
   Jame   
      
      
   --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5--b20111217   
    * Origin: RJC eeePC (1:120/419)