1.5? 2.0?

probably stability reasons.

There’s actually rules for versioning. I forgot, though.
Anyhow, it’s not 1.3 until it’s officially released as 1.3 ??

There’s actually rules for versioning.

Really?

Yeah it would be interesting for us non-programmer d0ods to hear what they are!

Kubrik Fan – actualy probalby not. It is quite dry and can make one go mad… But I’ll try, if anyone has further comments, be sure to add them.
Essentialy every version number has at least 3 parts to it: Major, Minor, and Build. And depending on the development team, you could go a fourth which would be Major, Minor, Revision, Build. Major and minor numbers are only updated when the item is actualy released. The “rule” for updating the Major vs. the minor hinges upon the enormity of the changes being implemented. If it’s a total and complete re-write, or a seriously new code base, then the minor is reset to 0 and the major gets incremented. The revision and buld numbers are incremented as features are added and are generaly tracked during the development & testing (after which it becomes released and the minor and/or the major numbers are updated). The revision number may also be adjusted if an “in between” release is needed. Such was the case for 1.2.1 to implement some new security stuff recently.
I know there is also a set of rules that determine the difference between 1.03, 1.3 and 1.93. 1.03 says the release has only just begun (for 1.3)… 1.3 means it’s been released, while 1.93 is the final Beta. I’ve also seen it tracked as 1.3.0, 1.3, 1.3.9 as the same.
I wouldn’t necessarily call them “rules” but rather “generaly practiced guildelines.”
Tg

There’s also the Linux kernel style, which uses odd numbers for minor (major.minor.revision) to indicate unstable builds, and even numbers for stable builds. Revision keeps track of the incremental updates, and major is only updated, as mentioned above, when something really changes.