I don't see any good reason for the skewed naming scheme of 2009-x in 2010 or 2011. We should use the year that the release was made in, period. That avoids unproductie arguments on how major or minor a release is.
I guess my email is a case of "everything has been said already but not yet by everybody" ;-) Tobias Lawrence Paulson schrieb: > I'm afraid that I originated the custom of not always linking the release > name to the calendar year. The idea was to indicate that the new release > consisted of little more than patches from the previous one. So, one option > is to call it Isabelle 2009-3, which would mean that it is still essentially > the same as Isabelle2009. If that isn't the case, then we should call it > Isabelle2011. > > Larry > > On 6 Jan 2011, at 22:00, Gerwin Klein wrote: > >> On 07/01/2011, at 3:59 AM, Makarius wrote: >> >>> Bonne année à tous, >>> >>> this is a reminder that we are approaching the next official Isabelle >>> release. I've got myself caught into too many other tasks over Christmas >>> vacation, and will now see how quick we can get a lift off. >>> >>> If everybody else manages to wrap up until the beginning of next week, we >>> have a good chance to release before the end of the month. >> Looking forward to it :-) >> >> >>> I think a release date of January 2011 still justifies to call the release >>> "Isabelle2010". >> Why would we want to, though? >> >> Not that it's that important (which makes it all the easier to have long >> discussions about it ;-)), but no matter how you look at it, we're >> suggesting some correlation between release year and name. Then we twist it >> slightly to mean when we did most of the work on it or what it is most >> similar to if it is a minor release. I don't think the mythical "normal >> user" cares about that. But they do get confused by Isabelle2010 coming out >> in 2011 and 2009-2 coming out in 2010 etc. >> >> There's a fairly simple way of appearing a lot less weird to the outside >> world. Just take the release date and call it that. If we have more than one >> release per year, -n makes perfect sense, but otherwise it causes more >> confusion than what it carries in information for the select few who know >> what it means. >> >> Cheers, >> Gerwin >> _______________________________________________ >> isabelle-dev mailing list >> isabelle-...@in.tum.de >> https://mailmanbroy.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/mailman/listinfo/isabelle-dev > > _______________________________________________ > isabelle-dev mailing list > isabelle-...@in.tum.de > https://mailmanbroy.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/mailman/listinfo/isabelle-dev _______________________________________________ isabelle-dev mailing list isabelle-...@in.tum.de https://mailmanbroy.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/mailman/listinfo/isabelle-dev
