Re: <sigh/> 4.2?

[Dennis Evans <Dennis.Evans@Eng.Sun.COM>]

++
++>Q: Can I fix a non-normative part of the DTD without reving the
++version number? The docbook.cat file included in the XML version of
++4.1 has a few errors. It was accidentally missing from the 4.0
++distribution and I foolishly published 4.1 without a beta. Damn my
++eyes.   
++
++The way Ralph put it some years ago, you don't ever want to have
++two packages floating around that have the same version number
++but are actually different.  So no, if you make a change to
++a part you have to rev the version number of that part
++and of the distribution.  
++

I'm afraid I agree here.

Does this mean we need another phone conference?


++Now, we might introduce a version number for the distribution
++that is distinct from the version number for the normative part
++of the DTD; I don't have an opinion on whether that would be
++a good idea, but probably Eduardo and Dennis do.
++

I think that could start creating more confusion.


<strong/><sigh/>

Dennis