Re: Upped the development source version number to 1.0.3

[Scott Blachowicz]

Simon Burge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I've never been a fan of the internal vs. external release number idea.
> If we have 1.0.2 being released then 1.0.4, people may wonder whatever
> happened if 1.0.3 and so on...

Same here...I may be old-fashioned, but I think the version number should be
generally increasing over time, so bouncing between even & odd release numbers
over time seems weird. And, bumping the version number to 1.0.3 before 1.0.3
is released seems weird, but the number should always change as a new release
is put out.  Maybe that means I'd prefer having X.Y.Z where X is major
version, Y is minor version and Z is development-in-progress version.
So, public releases would've been 1.0.0, 1.1.0, 1.2.0.  And instead of
bumping from 1.0.2 to 1.0.3 on this public release, I would've
released 1.2.0, then bumped to 1.2.1 for the next chunk of
development.

Just another $0.02...

[EMAIL PROTECTED]