Re: 10.0

> On Jun 20, 2016, at 1:00 PM, David G. Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Mark Dilger <hornschnorter(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > Do you have a problem with the human form and machine forms of the version number being different in this respect? I don't - for me the decision of a choice for the human form is not influenced by the fact the machine form has 6 digits (with leading zeros which the human form elides...).
>
> I don't have a problem with it if humans always use a two part number. I don't read
> the number 100004 as being three parts, nor as being two parts, so it doesn't matter.
> What got me to respond this morning was Josh's comment:
>
> "Realistically, though, we're more likely to end up with 10.0.1 than 10.1."
>
> He didn't say "100001 than 10.1", he said "10.0.1 than 10.1", which showed that we
> already have a confusion waiting to happen.
>
> Now, you can try to avoid the confusion by saying that we'll always use all three
> digits of the number rather than just two, or always use two digits rather than three.
> But how do you enforce that?
>
> ​You do realize he was referring to machine generated output here?

No I don't, nor will anyone who finds that via a google search. That's my point.
You core hackers feel perfectly comfortable with that because you understand
what you are talking about. Hardly anybody else will.

As you suggest, that's my $0.02, and I'm moving on.

mark