4.2 BETA?

[Biju Chacko]

Brian J. Tarricone wrote:
> i'm not too fond of adding a fourth number either.  perhaps bump them 
> all up to the highest version number?  though that's something like 
> 4.1.25.  or maybe bump them all up to 4.1.90?  for the dev cycle, the 
> version numbers are largely meaningless; just a way for us to make sure 
> packages have good dependencies when we add something to a library that 
> another package requires.  now that most things are frozen now, APIs 
> should be stable, so a 4.1.90 scheme might work well.

I'm afraid I didn't quite understand that ... could you elaborate?

-- b