Fair enough, I should have reread the thread before posting, my bad. Though none of that was me trying to pick a fight. I do come across as combatative sometimes, I'm not specifically trying to be though, I just like making thorough points.You make a solid argument, much of which i agree with. Kernel versions and code changes make a difference though to be fair and I disagree with your point regarding a move to a 10.6 naming scheme had SL never been released - traditionally a major version number change requires significant under the hood changes that breaks compatibility and requires new APIs and so on. My point wasn’t against the use of the 10.5.9 moniker regardless, nor was I suggesting the project needs to be renamed, in fact if you actually read my responses you’ll see that the name only came into discussion because another user projected an argument onto me that wasn’t mine to begin with. I’m unsure as to why i’m having to clarify that again.
In my original response i only stated that i agreed with @Dronecatcher regarding the exaggerated claims as it is a disservice to the project, its creator and the community, and then went on to say that the project doesn’t need such exaggeration as it stands on its own merit for what it is.
I respect and appreciate the people coming forth to defend the project and its creator, but maybe save that for someone actually attacking them? @z970 has understood my points and responded to them. I also value his contributions to the community and have expressed interest in this project. I stand by the actual opinions i have expressed and i am free, just as you are, to express them.
As for major version, I usually interpret 10 as the major version and 5 as the minor, so 10.6 is a minor version update even if it's in reality a large update, just like 10.3 to 10.4, but now that you've brought it up I can see the point. Especially now that I'm remembering that new 10.x.0 releases generally came with new versions of Darwin.