On Friday, 16 October 2015 at 22:54:11 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Friday, 16 October 2015 at 22:44:15 UTC, Gary Willoughby
wrote:
On Friday, 16 October 2015 at 17:58:27 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
How is whether there's a 0 before the 68 anything but
bikeshedding? It's the same number either way, it sorts
better as-is, and it would be inconsistent of us to change
now. Changing how the overall numbering scheme works might
make sense, but simply removing the 0 wouldn't gain us
anything as far as I can see.
- Jonathan M Davis
How? Let me explain.
Removing a zero is not what this is about. What we are talking
about is marketing.
[snip]
Fine. You think that making dmd's versioning be something more
standard would help the community and its PR. And maybe it
would. But simply removing the 0 doesn't do that. The whole
versioning scheme would need to be changed. Even if discussing
the versioning scheme isn't bikeshedding, simply arguing over
whether the 0 should be there or not _is_ bikeshedding.
- Jonathan M Davis
Well sure, removing the 0 wouldnt cut it but at least
incrementing it would make D seem more consistent across the
board. 2.069 seems like D is all weirded out.
Maybe incrementing the version number like 2.070, 2.080, 2.100,
2.120, 2.125, 2.135, would make ALOT more sense.
