On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 23:49 -0700, Jon Cruz wrote:
> Second, I think the year based scheme should be what we go with. A
> different numbering scheme could work, but if we move it forward then
> we lose the semantics of the major/minor compatibility issue that is
> so handy. On the other hand, a year based version clearly communicates
> to users when it was released, and how old it is getting.
>
> Internally we can keep a compatibility version going, but externally
> we can focus on the 11.10 style. That also can help once we hit three
> or more releases per year.

I second this.  Year-based versioning (I think YEAR.MONTH specifically),
with an internal semver-compliant version that keeps counting from 0.49
or whatever.