2008/4/10 Jameson Chema Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Redundancy is not bad. There are people who care about year (it is far > easier to remember that the last time I updated was 2 years ago, than > remember the build number then) and they should have something to "hold on > to". I vote including the year in addition to whatever else, but not using > it to replace major.
Do remember that the year is inaccurate and therefore misleading for anything that is in long-term-support. fooz-2006-1.3.4-australia was perhaps released in 2007. And it generates confusion - will the major number reset to 1 in 2007? The ubuntu numbering scheme causes quite a bit of confusion for example. This is not about being creative. Look at the software you use, the version scheme it uses, and whether it is clear to end users. I fully support calendar-based release schedules, but the date does not belong in the release name (except for development snapshots likw "fooz-cvs20050607.tar.gz"). cheers, m -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
