GCC 4.0 vs. 3.5 -- don't decide now!

[Nathanael Nerode]

Zack Weinberg wrote:
> I have no quibble with everything you said except this:
> 
> 
>>However, "3.5" is a fairly decent version number from a "big change"
>>perspective; it's halfway to 4.0.
> 
> 
> Don't perpetuate this pernicious error.  Version numbers are not
> decimal fractions.  They are 3-tuples of nonnegative integers,
> expressed in a convenient shorthand.
Right, this is the new orthodoxy.  :-)

>  There is no special meaning to a
> .5 or a .90 or even a .99 release.
Of course, GCC 2.95 and Autoconf 2.50 are evidence that that attitude is 
not always taken.  :-P  Generally, version numbering seems to be about 
appearance as much as (or more than) anything else.  You're fighting the 
'good fight' against that point of view.  I was simply describing what I 
thought random people's impressions would be.