> -----Original Message-----
> But will make disappointed many peoples that know very well Firebird.
> I think that this is not good idea and talk for inconsequent
> way of work. That does not talk good for us. How you will
> explain that leap of version numbers when some customer or
> manager asks you?
> Whatever explanation you give - they will think about you, us
> and Firebird that we a very unserious and mistrustful.
>
> I think that this is worst idea that I ever see in this mail
> list. It is just unserious to skip version numbers. We
> pretend to be a serious product with serious community - we
> cannot do such thing. Ok we have a small version number, but
> that is reality. We must make popular Firebird, not through
> big version number. What is the version number of Linux??? Or
> Java VM? Version number is not the problem.
>

Then perhaps pick up on Fikrets/Martijn's idea of Firebird 2005 (internal
ver 2), personally I am not too bothered what version it is at, but then
again I am familiar with FB so I don't need convincing when selecting a
database for a product. However the perception (always remember bullshit
baffles brains) in the business community *is* important, the more managers
you can convince the more business's you can get on board, which increases
the possibility of corporate sponsorship and increased user base. If
increasing the version number *could* add to this perception then its worth
considering.

As for jumping version numbers there are plenty of examples of companies
that have done just that, take SQL Server
(http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/anniversary/timeline.asp) for
instance:

1992: First beta for NT
1993: Version 4.2
1995: Version 6

Rgds

Si Carter
http://www.tectsoft.net/