| I.e. a linux
  | release would have an even minor version, and the development would
  | have an odd minor version. Which makes more sense, too. Look at this:
  | (due to your suggestion)
  |
  |     release       2.1.0
  |     development   2.0.x

>No, development would be 2.2.x from before 2.1.0 was released
>kre
In all honesty, this branch naming is confusing. People will think that 2.2 is
a more stable version than 2.1 even though it is considered to be -current.
If someone sees a product at 1.7 and another at 1.8, they will tend to opt for
1.8 and not realize that it may be more unstable that 1.7

I like current method of branching 1.6.N off the mainline 1.6[:alpha:] because
the 1.6.N is what most normal people will see when the product is released.
Letters in a release number will usually indicate some sort of unusual work. As
a result, one will pause to find out why. In the course of the said research,
they would discover that 1.6[:alpha] is a development version. If the person
wants stability, they would pick the highest stable release.

When I played around with Linux some years ago, it always perplexed me why
they did versioning in their way. It didn't seem sane to have a 2.0 stable,
2.1 dead development, 2.2 current, and 2.3 development. The implied message
behind it to me way that someone fouled up in 2.1 and 2.3 and the entire
release had to scrapped. Coming from an IBM method of development has shaded
my viewpoint, but I think that my questions and comments would have been a
FAQ.