On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Genes MailLists <lists@sapience.com> wrote:
I think the reason day was excluded by previous suggestions is that
the current development model doesn't generate a "blessed" version on
anything close to a daily rate. Even if you wanted to incorporate the
-rcs or -next into this scheme, it seems like it'd be somewhat
problematic since the day field would drop in value during development
e.g.
20.11.3.18 = 2.6.37-rc1
20.11.3.25 = 2.6.37-rc2
20.11.4.2 = 2.6.36-rc3
That having been said, <century>.<year>.<month> would be as valid as
3.<year>.<month>, and might help drive home the point that the version
number is "a point in development" rather than some kind of "indicator
of feature releases".
Or until the New Galactic Calendar is introduced... ;)
Silliness aside, what are the deficiencies of the current numbering
that are being addressed here? The only things I can come up with
are, "major number is getting too big" and "development no longer
follows a major/minor feature based model, so the version numbering
scheme should reflect this". Are there any other reasons for a
change?
Kevin
--
