On Feb 24, 2011, at 3:09 PM, David wrote: > I fully recognize that we could call the next iteration of Clojure "2.0" > and would be well within our rights. My point has been that calling it > 2.0 may give people the impression that developing in the language is > seamless and well-polished. When they find out that it's not, Clojure > may experience some backlash.
Without commenting on the validity of the above at all, I seem to recall that the application of the "1.0" version label prompted the same sort of concerns. - Chas -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
