Josh Berkus wrote:
> Between major
> improvements to performance, major changes to the file format, and changes to
> implicit conversions breaking backwards compatibility, our new ability to
> more-or-less stick to deadlines ...
>
> ... should this be 9.0 instead of 8.3?
>
> Seems like it'd be both an annoucement of how far we've come, as well as a
> warning to users that the 8.2-->9.0 upgrade could be painful. And that some
> of our more radical features in the new version could have some rough edges.
>
> Of course, that does put is closer to 10.0 which is going to break a lot of
> packager's scripts. ;-)
>
> Thoughts?
I like 8.3 better personally.
