I guess I agree. I wasn't around for the change from 1.6 to 1.8, but as 
far as I know, the change from 1.8 to 1.9 is bigger and deeper than the 
one from 1.6 to 1.8.

I think there is some reluctance to go to 2.0 because it sounds like too 
big of a change. I have seen other projects where the numbering scheme 
seemed to have lots of problems to reach a new major number (call it 
major version number phobia?).

Two years ago, it sounded like there was a lot of other new stuff that 
would go in between 1.9 and 2.0, but at the moment, it doesn't look like 
there is anything really major (such as a new VM or M18N or so) coming 
up very soon, so moving to 2.0 on the next good occasion seems
to be the right thing.

Regards,    Martin.

On 2009/08/09 1:35, Roger Pack wrote:
> I just read an interesting article on "technical marketing" that
> pointed out an oddness-ruby 1.9 being called 1.9 seems to diminish its
> credibility and importance somehow, thus causing fewer people to be
> interested in it.
>
> http://antoniocangiano.com/2009/07/27/why-technical-marketing-is-important-for-programmers/
>
> follow-up suggestion:
> name 1.9.2 2.0 when it is release [then name 2.0 3.0, etc.]
> Thoughts?
> -r
>
>

-- 
#-# Martin J. D?rst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:duerst / it.aoyama.ac.jp