On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 07:41:14AM -0500, Timothy Brownawell wrote: > On 06/14/2010 04:37 AM, Thomas Keller wrote: >> Am 14.06.2010 11:08, schrieb Stephen Leake: >>> Thomas Keller<[email protected]> writes: >>> >>>> We, the monotone developers, are very proud to announce the new 0.48 >>>> release of our distributed version control system. >>> >>> Thanks for your work on this, and everyone else's, too. >>> >>> After the releasek, you bumped the version to 0.99dev. It was suggested >>> to use 0.90 instead, in case we need 0.91 before 1.0. I think that's a >>> good idea. >> >> Well, actually we don't want another point release between 0.99 and 1.0. >> We should concentrate on getting 0.99 stable and out within the next >> couple of weeks and then finalize i18n and fix open bugs from 0.99 for >> 1.0. And I plan to make the time span between 0.99 and 1.0 reasonably >> long enough to let enough people find bugs which we can fix by then. >> Having more minor steps between 0.9x and 1.0 just makes it harder to >> stop people merging features into mainline during that time... i.e. >> "hey, stabilizing these new things shouldn't be a problem, we have a >> couple of more point releases left, right?!". >> >> And if we really, really need another pre-release for some weird reason >> (which I doubt, though), we can still make an 1.0 release candidate. > > 0.99, 0.999, 0.9999, etc also sorts properly, and emphasizes the idea > that each one is supposed to be the last before 1.0.
I wasn't around back then so I don't know: When monotone started, did it start as 0.01, 0.02, ... 0.09, 0.10, 0.11, ... or did it start 0.1, 0.2, ... 0.9, 0.10? If the former, we're using two-digit integers, but they could be interpreted as rationals, so we haven't run out. If the latter, the next would be 0.100. -- hendrik _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
