[GEM-dev] release date

[cgc at humboldtblvd.com]

Quoting Johannes M Zmoelnig <zmoelnig at iem.kug.ac.at>:

> > Well, I see that you are thinking of the release numbers as decimal.
> > I'm not sure if this is really common. (e.g 2.4.9 is lower than
> 2.4.10
> > in linux world)
> 
> which is true.
> but i feel somehow (and i think i have seen it, even in linux world),
> that
> the successor of 0.99 is rather 1.0 than 0.100
> 
> anyhow, i think the argument with "big changes" might be a better one,
> as
> it is really more than just the successor of 0.87, and skipping
> single version numbers (like 0.90) seems even worse.
 

Ok so it is a big change, but a _major_ reason for that is how long we've been
putting this off.  It doesn't really matter what the version number is because
if we contiue at this rate the 12 releases until 1.0 wouldn't happen until we
are all old men!!  I don't think we have to fear a 1.0 release in any way.  GEM
is really getting to the point that it compares pretty well to commercial packages. 

So what say you about a release on December 2nd?

> and 0.888 is such a beautiful number
>

The Illinois Pick 3 lotto on Monday night was 0 8 8, so there's a counter
argument for you! ;)

cgc

> 
> mfg.a.dsr
> IOhannes
> 
>