tomyn
New Member
Posts: 26
|
Post by tomyn on Dec 5, 2009 17:21:21 GMT
Well I do not know what you did, but you did it perfectly right. Now my onboard AC97 works with SATlive with minimum latency. Thank you. Tomy
|
|
|
Post by jml on Dec 5, 2009 18:43:13 GMT
By the way, why the new beta is named 2.10, the last version being 2.95 though?
|
|
|
Post by jml on Dec 5, 2009 18:45:32 GMT
I meant 2.9
|
|
|
Post by Michael Tippach on Dec 5, 2009 22:32:49 GMT
It was originally named "2.A"
Not everyone would agree that this was a sensible thing to do, either.
|
|
exyll
Junior Member
Posts: 74
|
Post by exyll on Dec 9, 2009 17:51:33 GMT
Which versioning scheme you use is not that interesting.
Linux used to have even/odd minor numbering indicating stable or development releases. Some had postfixes like alpha, beta, gamma, delta.
At my current job we just use major.minor.revision. Added functionality means an increased minor and working to make that version stable will increase the revision for every release build that we publish/make available.
|
|
wushu
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by wushu on Dec 12, 2009 16:04:06 GMT
I think the A in 2.A is meant to be number 10 in hex, not "alpha" or whatever. As stated, lots of people wouldn't understand it.
|
|
|
Post by noldor on Apr 21, 2010 13:48:59 GMT
yes. "2.10" seems weird after "2.9" because it exactly look like "2.1" you should rename it to "2.95" or whatever.
|
|