Revising Mercurial: The Definitive Guide

[Kevin Bullock]

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.

pacem in terris / mir / shanti / salaam / heiwa
Kevin R. Bullock

> 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.