> Mostly because we don't use the numbers as a signaling mechanism. They
just count up, every half year.

OK, but then it's not semantic versioning (as btcdrak claims).

> Otherwise, one'd have to ask hard questions like 'is the software mature
enough to be called 1.0.0'

I think the question has already been answered for you by the companies
that build on top of it, the investments being made and the $3.5 billion
market cap. The 1.0.0 tag is probably long overdue.

Then you could start using the version as a signaling mechanism.

> We're horribly stressed-out as is.

Yeah, probably not a very important topic right now.



2015-10-01 11:56 GMT+02:00 Wladimir J. van der Laan <laanwj@gmail.com>:

> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 11:41:25AM +0200, Marcel Jamin wrote:
> > I guess the question then becomes why bitcoin still is <1.0.0
>
> I'll interpret the question as "why is the Bitcoin Core software still
> <1.0.0". Bitcoin the currency doesn't have a version, the block/transaction
> versions are at v3/v1 respectively, and the highest network protocol
> version is 70011.
>
> Mostly because we don't use the numbers as a signaling mechanism. They
> just count up, every half year.
>
> Otherwise, one'd have to ask hard questions like 'is the software mature
> enough to be called 1.0.0', which would lead to long arguments, all of
> which would eventually lead to nothing more than potentially increasing a
> number. We're horribly stressed-out as is.
>
> Wladimir
>