Seems to me too, keep using pro2003 is the most economic choice.
especially when there s a "?" mark on whether or not we will have a 2005.
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004, Adrian T Sindile wrote:
> Hi, Tancredi!
> To avoid all this mess, extra effort and possibilities of mistakes etc., I
> would propose keeping pro2003 as the "batchname"...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Feb 24 2014 - 14:07:30 EST