On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 04:03:15PM -0400, Michael Carmack wrote:
> > > Whereas a jump to 0.3.8.2 "feels" less significant than a jump to
> > > 0.3.9 and one could argue for choosing to version this way, I'm not
> > > sure it's really that useful developers or users. A more logical
> > > versioning scheme might use major/minor/subminor numbers, where the
> > > major number gets incremented when backwards compatibility is
> > > broken, the minor number gets incremented when new features are
> > > added (forward compatibility is broken), and the subminor number
> > > gets incremented when neither forwards nor backwards compatibility
> > > is broken (e.g. bugfixes, added documentation, etc).
> >
> > In fact, that is the scheme we're using. But everyone here is too
