Hi All!   
      
   12 Jan 13 15:20, I wrote to Robert Wolfe:   
      
    RC> mbsebbs_0.92.0+111209-1ppa1~precise1   
      
     And note that I'm still using primary package version numbers like    
   "0.92.0+111209" instead of "0.95.14" (which is what that one is) because I    
   still haven't heard how the versioning is going to go.  IIRC; even version    
   numbers were for stable releases and odd version numbers were for develpment    
   versions.  That's fine except that they weren't in sequence;  0.93.x was used    
   to develop 0.92.0 instead of 0.91.x as I would expect.   
      
     Personally, I think v0.94.0 should should be just skipped and some kind of    
   note as to why added to the ChangeLog (or some kind of v0.94 release could be    
   done but still continue with 0.95.x as the current development leading to a    
   v0.96.0 release).  That way, v0.95.x development versions can lead to a stable    
   v0.96.0, which makes more sense.   
      
      
   Jame   
      
      
   --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5--b20111217   
    * Origin: RJC eeePC (1:120/419)