> > -1 for actual releases: it would create more mess imo for end users if > there's many bizarre jumps in numbering
The thing with this argument is that it's very, very weak. If a missed version confuses a user, they're basically brain-dead. Assuming your users are brain dead is _always_ dangerous. Assuming the users or a _development_ tool are brain-dead is that in and of itself IMO. A random example from central that I gave to Robert earlier: http://search.maven.org/#search|gav|1|g%3A%22antlr%22%20AND%20a%3A%22antlr%22 I don't know about the rest of you... but I'm not confused by the absence of 2.7.3 in any way shape or form. I'm additionally not confused by the absence of 2.7.8, 2.7.9, 2.7.10, etc, nor 2.8.* nor 2.9.* It's meaningless to me that they're absent. I use and test a version (usually latest) and verify it functions adequately for my needs, then I depend on it (dep or plugin equally) and that's it. If I find a flaw, or need to use a new feature, then I can go looking for the best version that is compatible with my setup, that contains it (again, likely latest, API change not withstanding). Being worried about developers being confused by a non-sequential set of binaries to choose from is bizarre at best. Developers, even the bad ones, are generally a fairly intelligent bunch. This is not winamp! :-p (nor VLC) Fred.
