Build Debate: Followup on Build Naming

[Charles Merriam]

Here's may proposal:
    OLPC <Year> <components> <major>:<minor> [- <special_build>]
    OLPC 2008 OS 1:0 - Mexico
    OLPC 2009 Activity Bundle 2:14
    SPE 2009 Student Bundle 1:0 - Approved by Sec. Mota

OLPC = Built by OLPC.  If the Secretariat of Public Education builds a
custom, they name it SPE or anything not OLPC.
Year = The year (YYYY).  This provides a simple, human readable, first
classification.  It does encourage upgrading once a year and lets OLPC
easily drop support for versions two years old.

Components = The components included, e.g., "School Server", "OS",
"Activity Bundle", "Great Books", etc.

Major = Version numbers that restart every year.   That is, "2008 OS
1.0" and "2009 OS 1.0" are different.  As currently stated, OLPC F. is
pushing for two major updates per year "1.x" and "2.x".   Components
with the same major versions are generally expected to play together.

Minor = Yes, there will be patches and bug fixes.  People should
decide if this should start at 0 for each {Component, Major Version}
or just for each {Component}.  The latter would mean that one couldn't
tell how many patches were applied to the "OS" component, but would
know that "2008 OS 1:14" was built after "2008 Activity Bundle 1:13".
I'm in favor of just this latter scheme, because the shorthand "1:14"
becomes unambiguous.

Special Build = A special build for a market or reason.  So, " - <ISO
3166 CountryName>" or " - G2G1 Build" or whatever.  While it may seem
redundant to the minor version, it makes it easy to parse.

People will use shorthands to describe this:
* "OLPC 2008 1" means the first (April-ish) release of everything.
* "OS 1:15" or "1:15" means the specific version for the current year.
*  "2008 - Mexico" means the build Mexico choose for the yearly deployment.