You mean you weren't a fan of Linux Kernel versioning, e.g. 2.32.x, etc.? (See: even Linus agrees that you have to go go X+1.0, eventually!)
Chip On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Peter Westwood <[email protected]>wrote: > > On 16 Sep 2011, at 13:55, Otto wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 7:48 AM, Dion Hulse (dd32) <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Correct, but Version strings can be both readable (and order > >> understood by the masses) and be "just another number I don't > >> understand". to many people, 2.10 would've been equal to 2.1 > > > > Irrelevant, I feel. If people get it wrong, then that's kinda their > problem. > > > >> This is waaay off topic, but, the other suggestion for core is though, > >> When would've 3.0 actually "made sense" in a 2.10 release world? long > >> story short: It probably will never make sense due to the fast release > >> cycle, and limited changes between releases, unlike other applications > >> where our 2.8 -> 2.9 change would be their Version 5 to Version 6 > >> release (or more likely, V5->6 would be our 2.5 -> 2.9 release) > > > > Honestly, if it was up to me, the major version number would be around > > 5 or 6 or so by now. I'd have changed the major version with every > > major UI overhaul. > > > Version inflation like that is lame. > > What we have now is the most pragmatic solution IMHO. > -- > Peter Westwood > http://blog.ftwr.co.uk | http://westi.wordpress.com > 50BF A954 E072 23DB B50A A319 56C3 8FFF 9C72 AB79 > > _______________________________________________ > wp-testers mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-testers > _______________________________________________ wp-testers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-testers
