>>55089608
What about it? 100 usually comes after 99.

>>55089654
But 1.0 comes after 0.99.

>>55089668
Not always.

>>55089668
version number systems ≠ decimal number systems

>>55089693
It's still pretty stupid. Why are developers too pussy to just go for 1.0 these days?

>>55089668
That's not how it often works with version numbers. They're not in decimal numbering system

>>55089730
It's confusing at first and I'm not sure about the reasoning behind using it instead of regular decimal system, but that's just how it is. No big deal.

>>55089730
Usually versioning increments in order of update significance from right to left.

But I know what you mean in developers being pussy about releasing a 1.0. Some people see 1.0 as being the application milestone and anything after is just bugfixing and maintaining compatibility.

>>55089608
what about it, it's just couting

>>55089730
>>55089745
Because you can do things like:
3.012.042
Major Release.minor updates.small patches

Everyone does it differently though.

This is how it works:

http://semver.org/

Given a version number MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH, increment the:

MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes,
MINOR version when you add functionality in a backwards-compatible manner, and
PATCH version when you make backwards-compatible bug fixes.

Additional labels for pre-release and build metadata are available as extensions to the MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH format.

>>55089654
With that logic, how did it come to 0.99 in the first place? When it was 0.9, it should, with your logic, go to 1.0, not 0.10. Yet, it's 0.99...

>>55089608
99.2->100
What's the problem with that ?

>>55089730
I usually go by x.x.x.x

First one is for major releases
Second for periodic releases
Third is for in between patches
Fourth is for bug/vulnerability fixes

i start with 999999 and go backwards