On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 04:38:36PM -0400, Michael Carmack wrote: > On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 04:09:14PM -0400, Michael Carmack wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 03:01:15PM -0500, Steven Hazel wrote: > > > Michael Carmack <karmak at w3.org> writes: > > > > Actually, the reason I emailed this to the list was because > > I thought I saw some debate over whether the next release > > should be called 0.3.8.2 or 0.3.9. Using a major.minor.subminor > > versioning scheme I wouldn't expect there to be any room for > > such debates. > > > > I tend to skim some of my emails though, so perhaps I > > misunderstood what was being discussed. > > Never mind this. I switched from digest to regular mail today > and now I've seen the rest of the discussion. > > Kind of a shame that the version number gets that extra zero > prepended to it for psychological impact (if that is indeed > the only reason). One would hope an open-source project > would be above catering to the public perceptions that > corporate marketers have so detrimentally twisted over the > last decade. We should be fighting their impact, not > succumbing to it.
There is no gospel regarding version numbering. One convention is the major-minor numbering, but another convention is that 1.0 implies that you have something that is fully functional. The fact that we have gone through a number of incompatible versions and still are far from reaching
