On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 11:02 -0500, G. Matthew Rice wrote: > sciguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > You mean, change the numbers from say, 100 to 200? Or use a number that > > reflects the test version number? > > I'm open to any numbering mechanism, if someone can propose something clean. >
I was thinking of something simple, such as just using the major version number in the "hundreds" place, and the major objectives in the tens/ones place. The minor version number would just be used in the title. Paul King > Internally (and I'll make that publicly visible, too), the objectives are > versioned as major.minor where the major version increases with each > complete redo (including a JTA survey, like this time). We've committed to a > 5 year cycle on these. > > The minor version increases when there is just a interim assessment of > changes that are needed. This will happen, at least, every 2.5 years. > > So, the version for these new objectives will be 2.0. > > I'd like to avoid numbering the objectives as 2.0.101.1 (etc) as that looks > really icky (and looks too much like RCS/CVS branching, which also irks me). > So if someone has a cool idea, please speak up. > > > > There was something else that stood out when I saw the topics. They flow > > nicely, but one that to me stands out in the sequence is topic 104 (file > > systems). I would move it ahead of topic 103. That way, GNU and UNIX > > commands, and all topics up to 107, has some relation to ongoing systems > > maintenance or programming of some kind. Those which come before would > > predominantly relate to the configuration of the basic operating system, > > which one would tend to think about only when first setting up the > > operating system, and not much after. In the same vein, maybe topic 106 > > could be moved between 107 and 108 (or ahead of 103?). The ones after 107 > > would be more "advanced" topics in systems maintenance. > > > > What is the current rationale for sequencing the major topics? > > There isn't one, really. The new numbering was really based on starting with > the old ones, adding/removing some, cleaning them up a bit and putting them > in sequence. Once the survey is complete and we're ready to 'lock in' the > objectives, the numbering could adjust a little more (plus we'll have to > decide on the split between 101/102 and 201/202 content). > > regards, > -- > g. matthew rice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> starnix care, toronto, ontario, ca > phone: 647.722.5301 x242 gpg id: EF9AAD20 > http://www.starnix.com professional linux services & products > _______________________________________________ > lpi-examdev mailing list > [email protected] > http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev > x _______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
