0 in version number?

[Israel via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 16 October 2015 at 22:54:11 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
> On Friday, 16 October 2015 at 22:44:15 UTC, Gary Willoughby 
> wrote:
>> On Friday, 16 October 2015 at 17:58:27 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
>> wrote:
>>> 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
>>
>> How? Let me explain.
>>
>> Removing a zero is not what this is about. What we are talking 
>> about is marketing.
> [snip]
>
> Fine. You think that making dmd's versioning be something more 
> standard would help the community and its PR. And maybe it 
> would. But simply removing the 0 doesn't do that. The whole 
> versioning scheme would need to be changed. Even if discussing 
> the versioning scheme isn't bikeshedding, simply arguing over 
> whether the 0 should be there or not _is_ bikeshedding.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

Well sure, removing the 0 wouldnt cut it but at least 
incrementing it would make D seem more consistent across the 
board. 2.069 seems like D is all weirded out.

Maybe incrementing the version number like 2.070, 2.080, 2.100, 
2.120, 2.125, 2.135, would make ALOT more sense.