<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Maybe they are trying to live down their bad press from 1.6 and 1.8 by abandoning the 1.X schema.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> asterisk-users-bounces@lists.digium.com [mailto:asterisk-users-bounces@lists.digium.com] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Warren Selby<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, July 22, 2011 3:27 PM<br><b>To:</b> Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [asterisk-users] 10.0.0 better than 2.0.0?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Norbert Zawodsky <<a href="mailto:norbert@zawodsky.at">norbert@zawodsky.at</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Maybe just a typo ? Misplaced dots between all those 1's and 0's ...<br>Maybe we should call it version "12" instead of 1100 ;-)<br><br>Am 22.07.2011 21:50, schrieb Danny Nicholas:<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><br>I thought it was going to be 1.10.0<br><br clear=all><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>No, they're referring to the new asterisk numbering system announced yesterday on the asterisk-announce mailing list[1]. Basically, the consensus was (amongst Digium employees I assume, since I didn't see any discussion on the topic on this list or the -dev list (although I admit I don't follow the -dev list as closely)) that there is basically never going to be a change so drastic to the asterisk core that it would warrant calling it Asterisk 2.0. Because of this, the whole concept of having 1.x releases becomes redundant, since it leads one to believe that eventually there will be a 2.0, so they're dropping the "1." part of the version numbers, and starting with what would have been version 1.10, they'll just start calling it version 10.0. The next version would be Asterisk 11.0, and then Asterisk 12.0, etc.<br><br>Personally, I think this is a horrible idea. I thought Digium would have better sense than this, especially after the failed experiment with the 1.6.x numbering change that they reverted on within 18 months. The confusion caused by the several different version numbers is significant, and unnecessary. Also, the fact that there have been three separate numbering schemes in the last 3 years give me the impression of instability and insecurity in the maintainers of the project, because if something as simple as incrementing a version number can't be figured out, how reliable is the asterisk project itself? Big version number changes should indicate big changes to the core of the system, not just a change in the philosophy on how you want to number and market your project.<br><br>I guess what I'm getting at is this - if you're convinced that there's enough change to the core to warrant a version number change away from 1.x, then just make it 2.0, not 10.0. Jumping from 1.8 to 10.0 is just confusing. <br><br><br><br>[1] - <a href="http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-announce/2011-July/000331.html">http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-announce/2011-July/000331.html</a><br><br>-- <br>Thanks,<br>--Warren Selby, dCAP<br><a href="http://www.selbytech.com" target="_blank">http://www.SelbyTech.com</a><o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>