On 10/29/06, peter royal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Oct 28, 2006, at 4:18 PM, Trustin Lee wrote: > I think 1.1 can't become 2.0 logically. why not? its just a number :) > The issue I'm raising is that we don't have a way to express the > state before 2.0. sure, its any odd number < 2.0 :) > The compromise is to use 1.5 or something similar, but is it the > best way? i think so. version numbers are really arbitrary, and can descend into a total bike-shed discussion. what we have works.. and if we can help perceptions by picking an odd version that's > 1.1 for the next dev release, that's fine with me. for another point of reference, lucene had a stable 1.4, did a 1.9 development release, then released 2.0. basically same as we're proposing, except s/1.9/1.5/.
Actually, I talked about using 1.9 with Alex before, and he said that '9' is not the last number and we might have '999'. I think that's the point I started to get crazy about this issue. :D I am very fine with 1.9 because '9' has a very clear meaning. Trustin -- what we call human nature is actually human habit -- http://gleamynode.net/ -- PGP key fingerprints: * E167 E6AF E73A CBCE EE41 4A29 544D DE48 FE95 4E7E * B693 628E 6047 4F8F CFA4 455E 1C62 A7DC 0255 ECA6
