Re: Dropping the .0 on release numbers?

[Michael Gilbert <michael.s.gilbert@gmail.com>]

On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 12:25:25 -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> We have carried a major.minor scheme as a release numbering scheme
> since the Early Days, but it has lost relevance basically since Sarge
> (3.1 - But by the time it was finally released, some discussion was
> made whether Sarge should be 4.0 as the difference from Woody was
> already too large, to which the release team IIRC answered "it would
> be right but it's too late"). Since Etch released (2007), we have
> always used x.0. 

The .0 actually has quite a bit relevance since it signifies a new
major long-term release.  It also demonstrates stability when used in
conjunction with the third digit.  6.0.1 seems like a rather minor
update, which accurately describes stable point updates.  Whereas, 6.1
seems like a much more experimental update.

Also, as I mentioned elsewhere, testing could start to get beta-like
versions numbers, which would be useful for branding snapshots (e.g.
6.9.20100912).

Best wishes,
Mike