I've never understood why CPAN authors put their module numbers so low.
I'd guess that, at the beginning, it's a confidence issue. I'd think of it as, hey, I'm posting a module that seems to work for me, but it hasn't been widely tested yet: let's not get everyone's hopes up. After that, well, small incremental changes don't really merit a major version number increment, do they?
I agree with you; it's always rather odd to see stable, mature software with a sub-1.0 version number (slrn, anyone?). Of course, there's plenty of "production" software that really shouldn't be out of alpha yet.
--
Yours in pedantry,
F
o
x
t
r
o
t
U
n
i
f
o
r
m
"Anything you put in comments is not tested and easily goes out of date." -- tye
