quote:
Originally posted by CookieRevised
This is inlogical since version numbers exist of more than that! This way of interpreting a version number gets already flawed if you have a number like x . xxx . xxx
Because what is the decimal point? The first "." or the second "."? It is very inlogical.
None is a decimal point, I didn't say that. I said:
quote:
Originally posted by Guido
that part of the version number would act like a decimal
(in terms of the trailing zero being optional). I know 4.50.310 is not a decimal number, but 4.50 is rounded up at that nice "50" to be interpreted as 4 and a half, and this gets abbreviated on the official site's homepage as 4.5.
4.5 is not intended to be a version number, it's the name of a series of versions (and 4.50.310 is the first build of it)
I understood what you meant and know how version numbers are built (Including Plus!'s ones, there was a similar discussion here back in 3.5 IIRC). My point wasn't that you were wrong about suggesting using 4.50 (in fact it might be better in this context to avoid the confusions you mention), but just that you were wrong about 4.5 being incorrect/non-existant. Otherwise, you should consider it a bug in the website, not in Willz's skinning guide.
So, basically, don't run "4.5" through build numbering conventions, because it's not a build version number, it's the brand name of a series of releases. Still, if you make a poll, I believe most non-technical people will recognize 4.5 as an abbreviation of 4.50, and not as an early 4.00 series build -- major.minor.build version naming conventions aside.
(Sorry Willz for digressing so much
)
/ 
