[GNC] GNUCash XML format compatibility

[Peter West]

So it is correct to say that 3.0 was the major release, and that 3.1, 3.2. etc were all subsequent minor releases?

Saying 3.x is the major release is ambiguous, to say the least. In that case, 3.1, 3.2, etc would all be major releases, because they all qualify as 3.x.

It took me a while to work out what you were saying, and maybe I still haven’t.

Peter
--
Peter West
pbw at pbw.id.au
“For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness.”

> On 13 Feb 2020, at 12:54 am, Derek Atkins <derek at ihtfp.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Please remember to CC gnucash-user on all replies...
> 
> Peter West <pbw at pbw.id.au> writes:
> 
>> I assume that you mean:
>> 3.0 is the major release, and 3.1, 3.2. etc are all the minor releases. So the
>> next major release will be 4.0.
>> 
>> Is this the case?
> 
> I said exactly what I mean.
> 
> Technically, 3.0 was the first of the 3.x major-release cycle, and 3.1,
> 3.2, etc were all subsequent minor releases of the 3.x major-release
> cycle.  The next major release will be 4.x, starting with 4.0 as its
> first release in the 4.x release cycle.
> 
>>    On 12 Feb 2020, at 2:12 am, Derek Atkins <derek at ihtfp.com> wrote:
>> 
>>    First, note that we changed the numbering scheme between 2.x and 3.x.
>>    This means that 2.0, 2.2, 2.4, and 2.6 are all *major* releases, with
>>    minor releases denoted in the third number.  Whereas 3.x is the major
>>    release and 3.0, 3.1, etc. are all the minor releases.
> 
> -derek
> 
> -- 
>       Derek Atkins                 617-623-3745
>       derek at ihtfp.com             www.ihtfp.com
>       Computer and Internet Security Consultant