Re: 2.8 -> 3.0?

On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 08:08:37PM +0200, martin odersky wrote:
> I think this is a net improvement, because we will pull in a new scope 
> only by an explicit declaration, not silently by writing a path in a 
> package clause. But it is a backwards incompatibility. I was 
> wondering, therefore, whether we should call the upcoming version 
> Scala 3, instead of Scala 2.8.

I would like to cast a vote against.  My personal quality standards for 
a "3" are a lot higher than for a "2.8", but nobody (including me) would 
want to wait for my "3" standards to be met before releasing again. 
There is so much new code in 2.8, I strongly feel we should anticipate 
requiring a whole series of minor revisions just to reach 2.7 levels of 
stability, let alone a hypothetical and desirable even higher level.

Whether it makes any sense or not, choice of version number ends up 
having a huge impact on peoples' expectations.

--

-- 
Paul Phillips      | Appreciation is a wonderful thing; it makes what is
Protagonist        | excellent in others belong to us as well.
Empiricist         |     -- Voltaire
ha! spill, pupil   |----------* http://www.improving.org/paulp/ *----------