Re: [Monotone-devel] 0.99, 0.999, ...

[hendrik]

On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 07:41:14AM -0500, Timothy Brownawell wrote:
> On 06/14/2010 04:37 AM, Thomas Keller wrote:
>> Am 14.06.2010 11:08, schrieb Stephen Leake:
>>> Thomas Keller<address@hidden>  writes:
>>>
>>>> We, the monotone developers, are very proud to announce the new 0.48
>>>> release of our distributed version control system.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your work on this, and everyone else's, too.
>>>
>>> After the releasek, you bumped the version to 0.99dev. It was suggested
>>> to use 0.90 instead, in case we need 0.91 before 1.0. I think that's a
>>> good idea.
>>
>> Well, actually we don't want another point release between 0.99 and 1.0.
>> We should concentrate on getting 0.99 stable and out within the next
>> couple of weeks and then finalize i18n and fix open bugs from 0.99 for
>> 1.0. And I plan to make the time span between 0.99 and 1.0 reasonably
>> long enough to let enough people find bugs which we can fix by then.
>> Having more minor steps between 0.9x and 1.0 just makes it harder to
>> stop people merging features into mainline during that time... i.e.
>> "hey, stabilizing these new things shouldn't be a problem, we have a
>> couple of more point releases left, right?!".
>>
>> And if we really, really need another pre-release for some weird reason
>> (which I doubt, though), we can still make an 1.0 release candidate.
>
> 0.99, 0.999, 0.9999, etc also sorts properly, and emphasizes the idea  
> that each one is supposed to be the last before 1.0.

I wasn't around back then so I don't know:

When monotone started, did it start as 0.01, 0.02, ... 0.09, 0.10, 0.11, 
... or did it start 0.1, 0.2, ... 0.9, 0.10?  If the former, we're using 
two-digit integers, but they could be interpreted as rationals, so we 
haven't run out.  If the latter, the next would be 0.100.

-- hendrik