Naming of GnuPG
hidekis at gmail.com
Sun Apr 20 03:30:30 CEST 2008
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.
> On Apr 18, 2008, at 8:16 PM, Hideki Saito wrote:
>> 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,
>> 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?
> Gnupg-users mailing list
> Gnupg-users at gnupg.org
More information about the Gnupg-users