manu chao said:You are naturally right. I would find it simply a bit awkward, having 10.3.1 as well as 10.3.10. I can't remember having seen any software with a version number like this (x.10).
Especially is you remember the olden days when the part after the decimal was really treated like a decimal, so release order would be:
10.1
10.2
10.21
10.3
I still get tripped up sometimes when reading version numbers. Of course the newfangled way of calling it 10.2.1 it much easier to understand.