Build Debate: Followup on Build Naming

[Martin Langhoff]

2008/4/10 Jameson Chema Quinn <jquinn at cs.oberlin.edu>:
> Redundancy is not bad. There are people who care about year (it is far
> easier to remember that the last time I updated was 2 years ago, than
> remember the build number then) and they should have something to "hold on
> to". I vote including the year in addition to whatever else, but not using
> it to replace major.

Do remember that the year is inaccurate and therefore misleading for
anything that is in long-term-support.

   fooz-2006-1.3.4-australia

was perhaps released in 2007. And it generates confusion - will the
major number reset to 1 in 2007? The ubuntu numbering scheme causes
quite a bit of confusion for example.

This is not about being creative. Look at the software you use, the
version scheme it uses, and whether it is clear to end users. I fully
support calendar-based release schedules, but the date does not belong
in the release name (except for development snapshots likw
"fooz-cvs20050607.tar.gz").

cheers,



m
-- 
 martin.langhoff at gmail.com
 martin at laptop.org -- School Server Architect
 - ask interesting questions
 - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first
 - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff