Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Yeah, I think "variant" is probably more accurate, but I don't mind the > naming. I think having a unique identifier is important, but I am not > convinced that we need to introduce v2 and v3 at the same time. I would > rather see us unify behind a single approach to present a > clearer/smaller set of options to users. I agree with you that v2 is superiour most of the time over v1 and v3. If we keep v3, then "version" is an awkward phrasing to use. Some people with specialized needs may use "v3" while most people who do nnot have to use "v1" are better off using "v2" not "v3". If we were to drop v3, then "version" starts to make sense again, as "v1" is kept primarily for backward compatibility, and those who can afford to follow the latest can "upgrade" to "v2". Perhaps we can first agree to drop the last step from the series, keep calling these "versions", and then later add "v3" when we come up with an algorithm that would perform better than "v2" in almost all cases? I dunno. Thanks.
