Brave new (1.0) world.

[Patrick R. Michaud]

On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 02:16:58PM -0800, Allison Randal wrote:
> The idea is that we keep the yearly major version release and the  
> half-yearly deprecation point between two major version releases, as we  
> planned at the developer summit. But, the only thing that really matters  
> about the version number of the half-yearly deprecation point is that it  
> be predictable. Using minor version numbers for every monthly release  
> makes it predictable:
>
>     1.0  (March, deprecation point)
>     1.1  (April)
>     1.2  (May)
>     1.3  (June)
>     1.4  (July, deprecation point)
>     1.5  (August)
>     1.6  (September)
>     1.7  (October)
>     1.8  (November)
>     1.9  (December)
>     2.0  (January, deprecation point)
>     2.1  (February)
>     2.2  (March)
>     2.3  (April)
> [...]

I can definitely live with this.  The only change I might 
suggest is that we go ahead and call April 2009 the 1.3 release,
so that the July/".6 release" is the deprecation point
in 2009 as well.  Or, we could skip from 1.3 (June)
to 1.6 (July).

But it's not worth a debate over -- if others like it, great;
if not, then I'm great with the above plan.

Pm