SC decision on version numbering: 4.0

[Per Bothner]

Robert Dewar wrote:

> Well to me, to repeat my earlier thoughts, that is completely
> backward, as things stabilize, minor releases are appropriate.
> A 5.0 release as a user says "unstable, major changes".

The other reason for increasing a version number is for dynamic
shared library numbering.  If a new ABI is majorly incompatible
with the old one, then old libraries will be incompatible, so
it may be less confusing to bump major version numbers.  It's
a major change, but hopefully will be more-or-less stable.
If you prefer 5.0 could be "a stable ABI has been specified and
implemented" - it's *intended* to be stable, but there may be
minor bugs.
-- 
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/