[Peace-Maker]

Thanks for pointing that out, jsifuentes. What went wrong with contacting the development team first before publishing details?

It's fixed in the SVN r165.

@Sarabveer
Please don't mix official release numbers with forks. There is no SB 1.4.12. People will only get confused when there is an official 1.4.12, if they aren't already.

[Sarabveer]

Originally Posted by Peace-Maker Thanks for pointing that out, jsifuentes. What went wrong with contacting the development team first before publishing details? It's fixed in the SVN r165. @Sarabveer Please don't mix official release numbers with forks. There is no SB 1.4.12. People will only get confused when there is an official 1.4.12, if they aren't already.

Please recommend a numbering scheme.

[DarkDeviL]

Originally Posted by Sarabveer Please recommend a numbering scheme.

Considering how development releases often have '-dev' or '-git' in the end for the bleeding edge releases, how about something like this?

1.4.11-sarabveer

1.4.11-sarabveer1
1.4.11-sarabveer2
1.4.11-sarabveer3

1.4.11-sarabveer1.0
1.4.11-sarabveer1.1
1.4.11-sarabveer1.2

The phrase 'sarabveer' could eventually be shortened to 'sara'.

Just a thought.

[Dr. Greg House]

Originally Posted by Peace-Maker [...]People will only get confused when there is an official 1.4.12, if they aren't already.

inb4 saxton hell PH.

[Sarabveer]

Originally Posted by arne1288 Considering how development releases often have '-dev' or '-git' in the end for the bleeding edge releases, how about something like this? 1.4.11-sarabveer 1.4.11-sarabveer1 1.4.11-sarabveer2 1.4.11-sarabveer3 1.4.11-sarabveer1.0 1.4.11-sarabveer1.1 1.4.11-sarabveer1.2 The phrase 'sarabveer' could eventually be shortened to 'sara'. Just a thought.

meh

ill stay with this

1.4.13-fork