[development] drupal 5.1 or 5.0.1

[Angela Byron]

On 31-Jan-07, at 11:56 AM, Robert Garrigós Castro wrote:

> Shouldn't have been drupal 5.1 named 5.0.1?
>
> I wouldn't like to start (again?) a (previous?) discussion, but,  
> when no number appears, anywhere in the world, in any field, a zero  
> is understood. Which means, drupal 5 could have been named  
> 5.0.0.0.0.0.0. This page it selfs  (http://drupal.org/node/93998)  
> talks on a drupal 5.0 beta. The add project release form shows  
> three fields for major, minor and patch-level numbers. This 5.1 is  
> a new patched drupal, right? It should be 5.0.1, IMHO.
>

No. This has been discussed and discussed and discussed.

Drupal 4.7.x and below uses the first two digits to indicate the  
major version, the third to indicate the patch version. This confused  
the living hell out of people, who perceive that 4.6.x to 4.7.x is a  
'minor' update.

Drupal 5.x and above will be using the first digit for the major  
version, and the second digit to indicate the patch version. It would  
be silly to call it 5.0.x because we would never have a 5.1. The next  
version of Drupal will be called 6.x, and the one after that is 7.x.  
No more confusion.

http://drupal.org/handbook/version-info has way more info than you'd  
ever want to know on this topic.

-Angie