Naming of GnuPG

[Hideki Saito]

Hello David,
As for 1.4.x / 2.0.x naming thing, what I meant is that I don't think it 
necessary confusing. (although, I know a case that one got confused 
whether he should download 1.4.8 or 2.0.8; but this person was on 
Windows, so it wasn't too much of problem, as there weren't any choices.)
A lot of general public might think, however, higher the version, more 
features (which in GnuPG case, it is true), and perhaps less buggy, etc. 
And also there are many programs out there, which has version number 
inferior put into "maintenance mode" with only vulnerability fixes being 
conducted, which certainly not the case with GnuPG, as new features and 
enhancements are being introduced to it.
It was just my opinion, that if having 1.4.x and 2.0.x is about making 
choices available for standalone OpenPGP, and integrated solution with 
S/MIME, I just felt it makes sense more to have similar versioning 
scheme as I assume, that capability of OpenPGP part would be identical 
or similar to their 2.0.x counterpart.
Cheers,
--
Hideki Saito

> On Apr 18, 2008, at 8:16 PM, Hideki Saito wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>> How will version number convention will continue, as there are 1.4.x and
>> 2.0.x lines concurrently running?
>>
>> 1.4.x line will be evolving on its own separately from 2.0.x line, 
>> right?
>> Just curious, because now it is at 1.4.9 and 2.0.9...
>
> Not exactly evolving on its own.  1.4.x is not about to grow S/MIME 
> capabilities like 2.0.x, but some changes will certainly apply to both.
>
>>> From user's perspective, I think 1.4.x should be called something like
>> GnuPG Standalone, instead of having two different version numbers...
>> Well, I guess some programs go like 1.4.10, 2.0.10, etc., so this may
>> not be relevant at all!
>
> Do people find the 1.4.x / 2.0.x thing confusing?
>
> David
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnupg-users mailing list
> Gnupg-users at gnupg.org
> http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users