Its rather anecodotal seeing release like 3.45b79 (i duno if thats
even a release), where corporations don't even deal with minor version
numbers let alone patch-levels.
I favor 3.70, also
Stou
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 22:25:23 -0700, Fyodor <fyodor_at_insecure.org> wrote:
>
>
> 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)
>
> At the rate I've been pumping out (alpha) releases, it seems like I'd
> be well past 4.0 before the public release :). Actually I want to
> write a 2nd generation OS detection system and make many other
> improvements before calling it 4.0. But I agree that the version
> number should be bumped. If I call it 3.59, some uninformed people
> probably wouldn't upgrade from 3.55 just because they are so close.
> I'm currently favoring 3.70.
>
> Cheers,
> Fyodor
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 27 2004
Intro
