The Higgs bozo wrote:
> Given the systemic and fundamental changes in 1.9, I wonder why it
> wasn't given a clean break with the 2.0 name?  I know Matz had his own
> ideas for 2.0, but why couldn't he call his version 3.0?
> 
> There's a communication issue here, especially for non-rubyists.  Ruby
> has been known for being a bit slower than other popular languages, and
> 1.9 represents a big improvement from the past.  But the name 1.9 does
> not communicate the newness of it.  It looks like just another release
> of the same.
> 
> On the one hand we can agree that names do not _ultimately_ matter.  But
> on the other hand it's problematic to explain and re-explain that 1.9 is
> quite different despite its name.  The casual observer may never know.
> 
> Since an official production release of 1.9 hasn't happened yet, would
> it be impossible to convince the higher-ups to take the plunge and call
> it 2.0?

Because Matz gets to decide what the version number is.  No other 
reason than that :-D

-- 
Ron Fox
NSCL
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824-1321