<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Stephen Pair <<a href="mailto:stephen@pairhome.net">stephen@pairhome.net</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Brett Kosinski <<a href="mailto:fancypantalons@gmail.com" target="_blank">fancypantalons@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>> That's just a design decision I made. I felt was would be confusing to have<br>
> version numbers "1" and "1.0" in the same lineage. When you create a<br>
> branch, you would make "1.1" based on "1".<br>
<br>
</div>Fundamentally, what this illustrates is that these version numbers are<br>
imminently suitable for internal versioning of a product during<br>
development, and are more or less akin to, say, SVN revision numbers<br>
or the like (obviously with more semantics built in), but are wholly<br>
unsuitable (and were probably never meant to be used) for<br>
customer-facing version numbers that would be used for marking public<br>
releases.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Brett.</font></blockquote><div><br></div></div></div><div>Correct. </div></div>
</blockquote></div><br><div>I should have added, VersionHistory also let's you do a fair bit of reasoning and manipulation of and entire tree of VersionNumbers (including operations affecting an entire branch of version numbers).</div>
<div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>- Stephen</div>