title: How do I differentiate between beta versions and normal versions?
body: <p>I generally agree that major versions of a program should be <code>1.0</code>, <code>2.0</code>, ... and significant updates should be: <code>1.1</code>, <code>1.2</code>, ..., and that bug fixes should be at the third level: <code>1.0.1</code>, <code>1.0.2</code>, ... <code>1.0.156</code> (if you've been plagued by that many bug-fix releases between versions).</p>
  <hr />
  <p>But now I want to release my first Beta that will be one of a series of Betas leading towards the release of version <code>1.0</code>.</p>
  <p>Specifically, it doesn't make sense to me, to number my Beta releases greater than the number I am developing to, e.g. <code>1.0.1</code> up to <code>1.0.15</code> (if I have 15 beta releases) and then follow it with <code>1.0</code>.</p>
  <p>But using numbers less than <code>1.0</code> seems awkward, e.g. <code>0.9.1</code> ... <code>0.9.15</code> and will cause confusion if I start using <code>1.9.1</code> ... <code>1.9.15</code> as the Betas for version <code>2.0</code>.</p>
  <h3>Related:</h3>
  <blockquote>
  <p><a href="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/615227/how-to-do-version-numbers">How to do version numbers?</a></p>
  </blockquote>
  <hr />
  <p>Just for information, after your help and great links with more info, this is what I decided on.</p>
  <p>I've been going 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 0.91 ... up to 0.98 for my alpha versions.</p>
  <p>I know I can do 1.0 beta 1, which is the &quot;standard&quot; way. But taking everything into account, I'm going to go with: 0.99 beta 1, 0.99 beta 2 ... before I get to my 1.0 release.</p>
  <p>If I do a pre-release of my 2.0 version, I'll probably then follow the pattern and call it 1.99 beta 1, 1.99 beta 2, etc.</p>
  <p>Hopefully this question and the answers will help you decide on your scheme.</p>