Revising Mercurial: The Definitive Guide

[Sune Foldager]

On 2011-06-01 10:31, Kevin Bullock wrote:
>On Jun 1, 2011, at 7:06 AM, Sune Foldager wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
>I'd say it's pretty widely accepted that 1.9 + 0.1 = 2.0.

Well this isn't mathematics :p. And 2.0 feels more different from 1.9, when
it comes to version numbers, than 1.9 does to 1.8. :)