0 in version number?

[Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 16 October 2015 at 16:44:19 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:
> On Friday, 16 October 2015 at 15:20:54 UTC, Shriramana Sharma 
> wrote:
>> I always wondered why DMD releases have a 0 in their minor 
>> version number -- surely 2.068 is the same as 2.68? Why then 
>> retain the zero?
>
> We keep trying to get people to understand the importance of a 
> sane version scheme but it always falls on deaf ears. Even 
> Walter considers this bikeshedding.
>
> http://forum.dlang.org/post/ocjeghrkfkpjkvbxrzva@forum.dlang.org

How is whether there's a 0 before the 68 anything but 
bikeshedding? It's the same number either way, it sorts better 
as-is, and it would be inconsistent of us to change now. Changing 
how the overall numbering scheme works might make sense, but 
simply removing the 0 wouldn't gain us anything as far as I can 
see.

- Jonathan M Davis