Re: [HACKERS] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

David Garamond <lists@zara.6.isreserved.com> writes:
> Granted, the script itself is faulty, but since some other OS projects
> (like Ruby, with the same x.y.z numbering) do guarantee they never will
> have double digits in version number component

Oh?  What's their plan for the release after 9.9.9?

In practice, non-broken bits of code don't make such an assumption,
as there have always been lots of projects with double-digit version
components.  A quick grep for locally-installed packages finds

autoconf-2.53.tar.gz
binutils-2.10.1.tar.gz
bison-1.875.tar.gz
cvs-1.10.7.tar.gz
emacs-19.34b.tar.gz
expect-5.38.tar.gz
gcc-2.95.3.tar.gz
gettext-0.11.5.tar.gz
ghostscript-6.50.tar.gz
lesstif-0.89.9.tar.gz
lsof_4.47_W.tar.gz
make-3.79.1.tar.gz
mysql-3.23.29a-gamma.tar.gz
netcat-1.10.tar.gz
ntp-4.0.99k.tar.gz
procmail-3.22.tar.gz
sendmail.8.12.11.tar.gz
tar-1.13.tar.gz

IMHO trying to avoid double-digit component numbers is just silly.

            regards, tom lane