Naming of GnuPG

[Matt Kinni]

I find it very confusing.  In fact I don't know the difference between 
the two!

David Shaw wrote:
> 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
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 535 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20080419/5130d0e5/attachment.pgp>