Robert Klemme wrote:
> Why did you not label the "ruby to bytecode" version 2.0 instead -
> this seems like a major architectural change and it would have been
> worth a major release, wouldn't it?

Well that's a good question. I think we'd always expected that 1.1 was 
going to be a "big" release, given that we had so many 0.0.x increments 
that were smaller-but-still-substantial architectural changes. I suppose 
one reason we didn't go straight to a 2.0 release is that we always 
wanted the compiler to be complete for 1.0, but there simply wasn't 
enough time to make it happen in the 1.0 plan. Our releases have been 
very heavily driven by conference dates; we simply couldn't pass up 
JavaOne for 1.0. And going with a 1.1 now at "mid year" gives us the 
opportunity to complete the "ultimate changes" we have planned in a 2.0 
release this spring.

- Charlie