On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Mark Dilger <hornschnor...@gmail.com>
> My main concern is that a commitment to never, ever break backwards
> compatibility is a commitment to obsolescence.
You started this sub-thread with:
"If I understand correctly..."
I'm not sure that you do...
Our scheme is, in your terms, basically:
where <major> is a decimal.
You cannot reason about the whole and fraction portions of the decimal
When <major> changes backward compatibility can be broken - with respect to
both API and implementation.
It therefore makes sense to
> reserve room in the numbering scheme to be clear and honest about when
> backwards compatibility has been broken. The major number is the normal
> place to do that.
I'm not convinced there is enough risk here to compromise the present in
order to accommodate some unknown scenario that may never even come to