On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Thomas Berezansky <[email protected]> wrote:
> On the subject of the proposed scheme: I disagree with the last digit of > the year. If we are going with any form of date-based numbering then I > think we should go for last 2 digits of the year with the second number > being the month. The third number would start with 0 and increment once for > each maintenance release. > > As soon as we moved to time based releases, it seems like everyone, including myself, starting referring to the releases by their release date.. e.g. the "2013 Fall Release". I was mildly against it at first, but including the date in the name in some form frankly seems inevitable. It's just easier to remember. If we decide to change, I would also vote for the Ubuntu-style naming scheme Thomas describes. (IIRC, Jason S. was also a proponent of this scheme). As an example, the next release would be the 13.03.0 release. -b -- Bill Erickson | Senior Software Developer | phone: 877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457) | email: [email protected] | web: http://esilibrary.com | Equinox Software, Inc. / Your Library's Guide to Open Source
