On 16 Sep 2011, at 13:55, Otto wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 7:48 AM, Dion Hulse (dd32) <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Correct, but Version strings can be both readable (and order >> understood by the masses) and be "just another number I don't >> understand". to many people, 2.10 would've been equal to 2.1 > > Irrelevant, I feel. If people get it wrong, then that's kinda their problem. > >> This is waaay off topic, but, the other suggestion for core is though, >> When would've 3.0 actually "made sense" in a 2.10 release world? long >> story short: It probably will never make sense due to the fast release >> cycle, and limited changes between releases, unlike other applications >> where our 2.8 -> 2.9 change would be their Version 5 to Version 6 >> release (or more likely, V5->6 would be our 2.5 -> 2.9 release) > > Honestly, if it was up to me, the major version number would be around > 5 or 6 or so by now. I'd have changed the major version with every > major UI overhaul.
Version inflation like that is lame. What we have now is the most pragmatic solution IMHO. -- Peter Westwood http://blog.ftwr.co.uk | http://westi.wordpress.com 50BF A954 E072 23DB B50A A319 56C3 8FFF 9C72 AB79 _______________________________________________ wp-testers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-testers
