version numbers

[Allison Randal]

Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> 
> It's only an error if _every_ monthly release has a major new
> feature or incompatible change.  Otherwise we're still using
> the three part numbering system for monthly releases, so it's 
> more likely to be:
> 
>     january  2.0
>     february 2.0.1
>     march    2.0.2
>     april    2.1.0  # major feature or deprecation
>     may      2.1.1
>     june     2.2.0  # major feature or deprecation
>     july     2.5

Agreed, except that 2.0.x and 2.5.x are reserved for bug/security fixes 
of the "production" releases, so change that to:

      january  2.0
      february 2.1.0
      march    2.1.1
      april    2.2.0  # major feature or deprecation
      may      2.2.1
      june     2.3.0  # major feature or deprecation
      july     2.5

And, in fact, we may not leave the 2.1.x series at all before 2.5.

Allison