Timeline for 1.0?

Marcin Kasperski Marcin.Kasperski at softax.com.pl
Mon Dec 10 06:57:48 CST 2007

> This is about the 3rd time this has been asked recently. I wonder why
> it's suddenly become so interesting. Maybe because Bazaar is currently
> pushing to 1.0 (for essentially PR reasons as far as I can see - they
> feel it's time to confirm that they see bzr as solid, by giving it a
> 1.0 version number)?

Or maybe just because people are more and more eager to use Mercurial
in organisations? And it is easier to convince some manager to use
CuteTool 1.0.4 (ugh, would be better CuteTool 2.1.0, but one can not
have everything), than CuteTool 0.9.6. *Even they do not think
their product is mature, how could we consider using it!*

Practical life would be somewhat easier if using zero-based version
numbers was forbidden. After all, on commercial software market it is
a habit to call early versions 1.* and those stabilized 2.* (or more).

PS The best psychological result would be obtained if we silently
wiped out all those zeroes and therefore pronounced that we have
Mercurial 9.5, with some plans to release Mercurial 10.0 next year.

| Marcin Kasperski   | We want to know as early as possible whether
| http://mekk.waw.pl | the project will succeed. Thus we attack the
|                    |        high-risk areas first. (Martin)

More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list