> I'm not firm on calling it 2.0. I'm thinking we shouldn't call it 2.0. > I don't like going to two digits on 1.x either though, but we may have > to. 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - a - b - c - d - e - f - 10 - 11... How many releases do you really need between now and when you're ready to call this 2.0? :-) -michael