On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 09:37:59 +0200 (CEST), Alain DIDIERJEAN wrote:

> > 2.2, it's listed as ~*2.2.0_alpha41, too early for me. Thanks all for
> > the help  
> 
> Don't let the ridiculous version number fool you, 2.2 has been
> generally usable for a couple of years.
> 
> Oooops, I stupidly thought that "alpha" in version name, which usually
> doesn't appear, meant a specially risky version in alpha state... Silly
> me. 

I'd say the sillyness is in the version number. 2.2 (we're on 2.2.0 now)
reached the milestone of 99 release candidates, which is farcical.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

I don't have any solution, but I certainly admire the problem.