From: Gene Tani <gene.tani@...>
Date: 2006-08-22T23:50:10+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby 1.9, Ruby 2.0, Yarv and so on


Rick DeNatale wrote:
> On 8/21/06, James Edward Gray II <james@grayproductions.net> wrote:
> > On Aug 21, 2006, at 12:36 PM, Rick DeNatale wrote:
> >
> > > Doesn't Ruby version numbering follow the same general scheme as the
> > > Linux kernel?
> > >
> > > Version Major.Minor[.sub-version]
> > >
> > > Versions with even minor numbers are considered the stable
> > > "production" branch.
> > > Versions with odd minor numbers are considered experimental where
> > > features which might produce incompatibilities and breakage are added,
> > > tried out, and perhaps removed before becoming part of the
> > > specification if not the implementation of the next stable branch.
> > >
> > > Or do I have it wrong?
> >
> > In general yes, although it seems Matz is considering a production
> > 1.9 release.
>
> I thought that he was joking when he said that the version after 1.9.9
> would be 1.9.a.
>
> Now I wouldn't be surprised if 2.0 weren't just a tagged version of a
> 1.9.x release (which is what I meant above by "if not the
> implementation of," but I would be surprised if there was a production
> 1.9.x release so-named.
>

i think minor and teeny won't go over "9"

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ruby/browse_frm/thread/1fc37aafd77e131d?hl=en