On 11/15/2011 05:49 PM, Eli Collins wrote:
> Are you suggesting a two part version scheme? Ie
>
> 0.23.0 -> 2.0
> 0.23.1 -> 2.1
I didn't specify. We could either do that or:
0.23.0 -> 2.0.0
0.23.1 -> 2.0.1
...
0.24.0 -> 2.1.0
...
I don't care which much. Do you?
> fwiw I'd map 0.20.200.0 to 1.0, 203.0 would be 1.3, 205.0, would be
> 1.5. I wouldn't rename 21 since we've abandoned it. I wouldn't rename
> 22 either since it both has features that are in 20x, and 20x has
> features not in 22, and is not yet released or stable. Seems hard to
> come up with a reasonable version number for it.
This is about the fourth or fifth different proposal around these. I'm
not sure things are congealing around a consensus. I don't want to
stand in the way of that, but I think we might first settle the part
that we're nearer consensus on.
Doug
