Propose of new version scheme

[Jan Wagner]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Hi Michael,

Am 20.03.14 14:03, schrieb Michael Friedrich:
> Bumping something to 2.0 just because it was forked and being an 
> attention whore (pardon) is imho the wrong way.

my focus is more on the "he .. I have here a check_tcp version 2.1
which acts badly" and when we anytime will have a 2.1 release (any
maybe forks too).
this will lead into confusion as this check_tcp is completly different
between the forks.

Anyways .. I`m not stuck to this year.month thing, but I would prefer
a diverting scheme.

Cheers, Jan.
- -- 
Never write mail to <waja at spamfalle.info>, you have been warned!
- -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GIT d-- s+: a C+++ UL++++ P+ L+++ E--- W+++ N+++ o++ K++ w--- O M V-
PS PE Y++
PGP++ t-- 5 X R tv- b+ DI D+ G++ e++ h---- r+++ y++++
- ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
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=Xt6O
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----