Inc is probably a better way to say that, yeah.

I also agree with David that 2.0 has a popular connotation of
shiny-ness that came with the whole infamous Web 2.0 branding
phenomenon.

I am now at conflict internally, because I'd like to see Clojure
widely adopted, but I like the idea of the language having the agility
to do radical things to make itself better in a way that Java no
longer posses. So 1.3 still has its advantages. Clojure always has the
choice to stay the transition to semantic versioning until Rich feels
that it's at a place that semantic versioning makes sense.

I believe I've thought myself in a circle and need some hammock time on this.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your 
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en

Reply via email to