Re: Dropping the .0 on release numbers?

On 09/14/2010 07:58 PM, Michael Gilbert wrote: > On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 12:25:25 -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote: >> Hi, >> >> We have carried a major.minor scheme as a release numbering scheme >> since the Early Days, but it has lost relevance basically since Sarge >> (3.1 - But by the time it was finally released, some discussion was >> made whether Sarge should be 4.0 as the difference from Woody was >> already too large, to which the release team IIRC answered "it would >> be right but it's too late"). Since Etch released (2007), we have >> always used x.0. > > The .0 actually has quite a bit relevance since it signifies a new > major long-term release. It also demonstrates stability when used in > conjunction with the third digit. 6.0.1 seems like a rather minor > update, which accurately describes stable point updates. Whereas, 6.1 > seems like a much more experimental update. > I'd add another zero then, to increase stability: 6.0.0.1 -- Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدڤي http://dogguy.org/