Re: 3.1 status report

[John W. Eaton]

On 16-Jul-2008, Søren Hauberg wrote:

| I'm a bit curious, but why should the first 3.1.x release be called
| 3.1.50? Are you so fond of the 2.1.50 release (the one that'll never go
| away, it seems...) that you want a similar release in the 3.1.x
| series :-)

I want to make a series of snapshots before the next stable version is
released.  Originally, I was planning to call the next major stable
release 3.1.0, but if we do that, I'm not sure what version to use for
the snapshots.  So I thought we could use 3.1.X for the snapshots and
3.2.0 for the next stable release.  I chose X == 50 because I think we
are at least 50 percent of the way to 3.2.0.  :-)  But we can start
with X at 0 if people think that makes more sense.

jwe