In reply to Kenneth Hoste (HPC-UGent).

You'r right -- this scheme is heavily influenced by sever.org. :-)

FWIW: We talked about the "10" vs. "8" and decided that we would use "10" anyway; it's basically a tradeoff we deliberately chose to do.

In short, we had already planned for 2 major things:

1. A follow-on to the v1.8 series with a small number of new features (since new features were not allowed in the v1.8 series -- these were basically "pent up" vendor features). But it's still a "small" change on top of the v1.8 series, and it didn't seem worthwhile to give it a major new number like "2.0". Hence, we chose "1.10" (and also for the reasons I cited in the slides).

2. A re-branch from the development master to initiate a whole new major release series. This branch seemed worthy of a "large" number change (i.e., to "2.0.0").

As such, the numbers "v1.10.0" and "v2.0.0" kinda fit into our already-existing plans.

Hope that made sense!