[merge] rename 0.19 to 0.90

[Martin Pool]

On 8/9/07, Aaron Bentley <aaron.bentley at utoronto.ca> wrote:

> I see that you have not updated the format marker for merge directive
> format 2.  (Bundle format 4 doesn't have one, for compatibility with old
> readers.)

Thanks for catching that.  I fixed it in the second patch.

> I don't think that "emotional version numbers" fit very well with our
> development practices.

Can you explain more what you mean?

For our strictly time based cycles, maybe the best fit would actually
be to just name them by the date they come out, and have no
connotations about them being major or minor releases.

> Really, for suggesting high maturity, 0.9.10 would be better than 0.90.

Yes, some people might see that as more finished.  Of course that
clashes with our existing scheme, since we've long passed 0.9.

-- 
Martin