I agree, the rolling-release system of Arch is depicted much better with the YYYYMM format.
Ravster Mircea Bardac wrote: >On Wednesday 11 April 2007 19:06:40 Michel Di Croci wrote: > >> > I like the new idea, the only thing I don't totally approve is the >> > numbering system (YYYYMM). Since we're following more a kernel >>numbering >> > system I would have used this characteristics. Like the next version >>could >> > have been 2.6.22 or 2.6.24 but I don't know how to manage the trouble >>of >> > having so many digits ;) > >> > Or something like Arch2 6.22, And when the new kernel is released, we >>could >> > go to Arch3 2.1 (like Kernel 3.2.1) but I think it's taking to much >> > place... that was just a suggestion... >> >Well, even though releases follow kernel releases, I believe the >rolling-release-system can be "seen" a lot easier through time-stamps than >through (kernel) versions. > >My only problem with the digits is the fact that there's no separator in >YYYYMM, and it's a bit difficult to read. Other than that, it's ok, from my >point of view. > > >Regards, >Mircea _________________________________________________________________ Get the Kung Fu Bunny Theme pack free! http://www.imagine-windowslive.com/Themes/Messenger/Reward/Default.aspx?Locale=en-CA# _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
