3.70 has a nice ring to it.
-b
F> On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 07:23:15PM -0700, Stou Sandalski wrote:
>> I hope this doesn't start a flame-war but considering you've
>> re-written such large portions of the thing, wouldn't a major version
>> increment be waranted (i.e. nmap 4.0a1)
F> At the rate I've been pumping out (alpha) releases, it seems like I'd
F> be well past 4.0 before the public release :). Actually I want to
F> write a 2nd generation OS detection system and make many other
F> improvements before calling it 4.0. But I agree that the version
F> number should be bumped. If I call it 3.59, some uninformed people
F> probably wouldn't upgrade from 3.55 just because they are so close.
F> I'm currently favoring 3.70.
F> Cheers,
F> Fyodor
F> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
F> For help using this (nmap-dev) mailing list, send a blank email to
F> nmap-dev-help@insecure.org . List archive: http://seclists.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For help using this (nmap-dev) mailing list, send a blank email to
nmap-dev-help@insecure.org . List archive: http://seclists.org
Received on Aug 26 2004
Intro
