MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <mailman.20.1139349583.21820.ctan-ann@dante.de>
            <op.s4mktmp6ss64je@mortens-ibook.local>
            <7497A399-1C97-403E-B84D-1DD2F91D7D5B@guerilla.net.au>
            <20060213.150643.42787322.wl@gnu.org>
Message-ID:  <17394.7369.128300.829371@morse.mittelbach-online.de>
Date:         Tue, 14 Feb 2006 19:09:13 +0100
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
From: Frank Mittelbach <frank.mittelbach@LATEX-PROJECT.ORG>
Subject: Re: LaTeX (2005/12/01) Release Beta Test
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <20060213.150643.42787322.wl@gnu.org>
Precedence: list
Status: R

Werner,

 > . The files `report.cls', `size10.clo', `size11.clo', and `size12.clo'
 >   from the last LaTeX release identify themselves as
 > 
 >     2004/02/16 v1.4f
 > 
 >   while the new version uses
 > 
 >     2005/09/16 v1.4f
 > 
 >   I suggest to increase the version number to, say, 1.4g.

the convention we follow (normally at least) is as follows:

 - version number and date changes where there is any code change
 
 - but in case of documentation change we only change the date

so in other words the date reflects the state of the documentation while the
version reflects the state of the code (ie what appears to be in the file
after docstrip)

whether that is wise, would require public stating ... I don't know, but the
rational is: if you tell me you run 1.4f then i know that codewise you are
good even if you may not have the dtx that has additional info

 > . For the creation of encguide.pdf I would be glad to see all
 >   available fonts in the PDF document -- more than have been used in
 >   the PDF file from the beta test bundle.

which fonts do you miss? 

frank