0 in version number?

[bitwise via Digitalmars-d]

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?

If we just wait a bit, couldn't this just work itself out?

2.069
2.070
...
...
2.098
2.099
2.100 -> transition here, maintain sortability
2.1.01
2.1.02
2.1.03
....

     Bit