On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 10:22:46AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Bill Stoddard wrote: > > > > At the risk of racing too far ahead in this discussion, here is my > > suggestion... 2.0.43 becomes 2.1 and the MMN major does not change for > > subsequent 2.1 series releases (except for a compelling reason, eg a > > security fix -requires- a bump). Why 2.1? No technical reason; purely a PR > > tactic to telegraph to the user community we are putting a lot of focus on > > maintaining binary backward compatability and to get rid of the *.0.* in the > > version number (yea, to appease the folks who are allergic to 0's in version > > numbers). > > > > I like.
I also like, but I also think we should stick with the "even numbered revisions are stable, odds are developmental" axiom. -aaron
