Revising Mercurial: The Definitive Guide

[Sune Foldager]

On 2011-05-31 17:00, Matt Mackall wrote:
>On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 23:45 +0200, Gilles Moris wrote:
>> On Tuesday 31 May 2011 05:27:32 pm Matt Mackall wrote:
>> > Be sure to mention to them that 2.0 is due in November.
>>
>> Is this because this release will include substantial changes that the first
>> digit should chnaged, or you don't want a 1.10 ?
>
>The latter, of course.

Excuse me for bringing this up, but isn't it completely arbitrary, then? Why
not just version Mercurial using a single number in that case? It makes it seem
like 2.0 is in some way a big step from 1.x. It's not like we plan ahead that
we should spread out our cool features over 10 releases.