Lars Wirzenius wrote: > A work on version numbers. A YYYYMMDD (or possibly YYYY-NN, where NN is > a sequence number within a year) number is logical, and pretty easy. > However, the 1.1 kind of scheme, if used properly, makes it easier to > see when there have been large changes. The move from 0.93 to 1.1 is > big -- because of ELF. Later, similar moves might be made again. > For example, when multi-architecture support is included, we might move > from 1.x to 2.0. > > But this is a minor issue.
Well, maybe not so minor. It's a good point. (pun intended) The convention of point releases and major/minor version numbers is pretty well standard across all software and operating systems. I might upgrade from 1.1 to 1.1.1 or 1.2 without first looking at what's new. Not so with 1.x to 2.x. The date stamps loose all this information. I can't tell you _when_ DOS 2.0 or DOS 4.0 were released, or Win3.1 or JES3 or QEMM6 or Solaris 2.4, etc. But I sure remember the significance of all these. I'd sure vote for the "standard" major/minor version numbers. I see no advantages of the date methods. The dates are meaningless over time. -- ...RickM...
