Revising Mercurial: The Definitive Guide

Gilles Moris gilles.moris at free.fr
Mon Jun 6 01:33:17 CDT 2011


On Thursday 02 June 2011 01:37:55 pm Sune Foldager wrote:
> 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. :)

IMO, LiquidHG for the states concepts it brings an might deserve a 2.0.
Even though a basic Mercurial user might not see much differences.

Regards.
Gilles.


More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list