2007/5/8, Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 5/7/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It might not be that important, but I think the year should be first and > > > perhaps we might want to cut it down to 7.05. This way the version numbers > > > are in order (compare: 05-2007 < 01-2008...) and a short number is easier > > > to > > > handle. > > > > The name should certainly be numerically sortable with expected results. > > Generally a YYYYMMDD format is recommended. This could certainly be > > modified to be more 'eye pleasing', but I would put a strong emphasis on > > the need to be numerically date sortable. > > Painting the bikeshed here, but I would say 2007<some delimiter>05 > sounds absolutely fine, and it is extremely clear and sortable. > Shortening the year has caused problems before, no need to do that. It > also prevents any confusion (is 07-05 July 5th, May 2007, May 7th, > etc.?). I think we've noted that a specific day is not important and > our release schedule will never be that fast.
Sure. And yet another argument why shortened Y-MM (i.e. 7.05) bad - it's so Ubuntuish. :-P. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич) _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
