X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["411" "Tue" "8" "July" "1997" "12:56:58" "+0100" "Sebastian Rahtz" "s.rahtz@ELSEVIER.CO.UK" nil "12" "Re: TDS version?!" "^Date:" nil nil "7" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: from listserv.gmd.de (listserv.gmd.de [192.88.97.1]) by mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA11366; Tue, 8 Jul 1997 14:01:06 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from lsv1.listserv.gmd.de by listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <13.53E17F83@listserv.gmd.de>; Tue, 8 Jul 1997 13:57:25 +0200 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 166340 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 8 Jul 1997 13:56:09 +0200 Received: from pillar.elsevier.co.uk (root@pillar.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.222.35]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.7.6/8.7.4) with ESMTP id NAA10921 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 1997 13:56:06 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from snowdon.elsevier.co.uk (snowdon.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.197.164]) by pillar.elsevier.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA24354 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 1997 12:52:35 +0100 (BST) Received: from cadair.elsevier.co.uk by snowdon.elsevier.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Tue, 8 Jul 1997 12:58:06 +0100 Received: from knott.elsevier.co.uk (knott.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.197.165]) by cadair.elsevier.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA29221 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 1997 12:58:00 +0100 (BST) Received: (from srahtz@localhost) by knott.elsevier.co.uk (8.8.3/8.8.5) id MAA29976; Tue, 8 Jul 1997 12:56:58 +0100 (BST) References: <970708123637.ba62@vms.rhbnc.ac.uk> Message-ID: <199707081156.MAA29976@knott.elsevier.co.uk> Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project In-Reply-To: <970708123637.ba62@vms.rhbnc.ac.uk> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 12:56:58 +0100 From: Sebastian Rahtz Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Subject: Re: TDS version?! Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 2284 > My point is: the TeX-live-2 version is dated "April 1997", one and a half > years after "the second public version (November 1995)", yet has a version > number 0.1 something, not 0.9 something. Something very strange is going > on here... nothing strange at all. i screwed up somewhere, is all storms, teacups and such like come to mind. but i agree we should issue it as TDS 1.0 and what the hell s