Well, *obviously* it goes with the ranking it's put in. It should have been more than clear that the x is more important than the y, and the y more important than the z. Hence, why 1.0 is deemed more important (or 'major') than 0.5, and 0.5 is more important than 0.4.12, for instance. This really is pretty straightforward to comprehend, so I'm wondering why you are even denying it. It's quite obvious that is how it is perceived. As said, look at our own roadmap. The only things mentioned there are the 'big' releases (aka, the y, since the x is deemed too far away). Even after 0.4 comes out, you won't suddenly see 0.4.1 popping up there. At most, 0.5 will be filled in further, and maybe 0.6 will be put there. Why?Z98 wrote:Whatever gave you the impression that in a numbering scheme such as x.y.z, the y value is treated as a major number?
Well, you know the answer as well as I do. It's for the reasons I already mentioned. There is simply no denying, that as a common perception (and practise) 'major' numbers (whether those are x or y do not matter, except that 1.0 is evidently perceived as the most important) are deemed to be more important than z subnumbers. In this sense, your question/remark is completely irrelevant. It's not a matter whether *I* got the impression *you* treated y as a major number, it's that the vast majority of people will always treat major numbers (or 'next digit' numbers, if you like) as more important. And the importance (and expectation of improvements and features) goes upwards from z to x. This is rather self-evident.
In fact, this very discussion and the mere fact ROS is going for 0.4 already proves the point. If there was no perceived importance in the numbering, then why go for the 0.4 mark? If there is no such discerning difference, there would be no need for it, and it would be much more logical to go for the next iteration in line, namely 0.3.17. The fact that we don't, already proves the point I'm making. The fact that we try to get some important stuff in there for the 0.4 release, too. The fact we made a big IGG campaign with the '0.4' release instead of the '0.3.17' release, as well.
In short, there is no denying there is a psychological part in human behaviour at play here, where the tendency is, to put more importance to numbers that are more 'whole' or have a 'next' digit. It's entrenched in everything we do or make, from economics to even warfare. You'll be hard-pressed to find someone who thinks the difference between a Leopard 1A4 and Leopard 1A5 tank, will be greater than between a leopard 1 and a Leopard 2 tank. And rightfully so. No-one in his right mind is going to make a small incremental amelioration on an Leopard 1 tank and call that a Leopard 2 tank. At least, not without the risk of ridiculing oneself.