On 04/05/06, Elliott F. Cable ecable@avxw.com wrote:
On May 4, 2006, at 9:57 AM, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 11:44:52AM -0700, Carl Witty wrote:
Maybe we should just drop the "1." and call the next release 7.0. Makes for less typing. Someone remind me which software project did that...
GNU Emacs: went from version 1.1 to 1.12, then dropped the initial "1" and has continued from version 13 to version 21 (so far).
Less has never had "traditional" version numbers; it's up near version 247 or something.
Mac OS X? Other way around - went from system 7, 8, OS 9 - then 10.1 (10), 10.2 (11), 10.3 (12), 10.4 (13) and soon, 10.5 (14) - I tend to find that copying something apple did leads to success, ESPECIALLY when they changed something - usually, when they admit they made a mistake (very rare) and fix it in a given way (much less rare) then they usually fix it 100%, and put lots of thought into their decision. I see the fact that they ended up using a X.YY system means we should stick to the same, but maybe that's just me.
I can't believe that people are bothering to go out and research the version numbering schemes of different products in order to bolster this one's reputation through some implied connotation.
What's the problem with sticking to 1.x.y, and incrementing the 1 when we can all agree that a single release has inserted something highly significant into the product?
Don't count your bridges before you cross them. Don't worry about numbering your versions until you have them.
Rob Church