On Sunday 25 February 2007 14:44, Neil Mitchell wrote:
* I think we should abandon version names like "Sep2006" and go for the usual numerical even/odd numbering scheme. This more consistent with the rest of the world and makes it easier for tools to determine e.g. which version is newer. I am not sure if we have ever released a numerical version, so I propose to call the current version 0.9 (odd, because it is a developer version) and bump it to 1.0 for the next release.
I like Sep2006, I think its cute, and I would actually rather the rest of the world moved to this system. However, I don't care enough to be the person who stops this. [...]
While I think that versions like "Sep2006" are nicer for humans, I have serious doubts that the tons of SW out there to handle packages (rpm, apt, yum, yast, ... plus probably quite a few home-grown ones) handle such versions correctly. Will all of these programs e.g. consistently determine that "Apr2005" is newer than "Mar2004"? I doubt that, and instead of trying to change the world I simply propose that we follow a common numbering scheme. Perhaps we can revisit this decision in a few years, when the world is a better place... ;-) Cheers, S.