On Saturday, 17 October 2015 at 02:11:42 UTC, Israel wrote:
Well sure, removing the 0 wouldnt cut it but at least
incrementing it would make D seem more consistent across the
board. 2.069 seems like D is all weirded out.
Maybe incrementing the version number like 2.070, 2.080, 2.100,
2.120, 2.125, 2.135, would make ALOT more sense.
I don't see how. The number is jumping all over the place. I
think that it's pretty clear that the first 0 in 2.069.0 is a
placeholder so that digits don't have to be added when it hits
2.100.x. That's done all the time with file names, even if it's
less common with version numbers.
Regardless, I really do think that talking about messing with
that 0 is total bikeshedding. If we decide that we want to go to
a different versioning scheme for whatever reason, then we'd end
up with something different, and maybe it wouldn't have that 0,
but simply removing that zero really doesn't change anything
except that it makes our version numbers less consistent.
In any case, I have a lot better things to do than discuss
removing a 0 from the version number just because it's less
common to do version numbers that way. Discussing a solid
proposal on a different versioning scheme along with whatever
release process would go with it would be one thing, but talking
about an extra 0 in the version number? I waste too much time
talking here rather than coding as it is. I probably shouldn't
have commented in this thread in the first place.
- Jonathan M Davis
