Re: Mirrors et al.
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> A work on version numbers. A YYYYMMDD (or possibly YYYY-NN, where NN is
> a sequence number within a year) number is logical, and pretty easy.
> However, the 1.1 kind of scheme, if used properly, makes it easier to
> see when there have been large changes. The move from 0.93 to 1.1 is
> big -- because of ELF. Later, similar moves might be made again.
> For example, when multi-architecture support is included, we might move
> from 1.x to 2.0.
>
> But this is a minor issue.
Well, maybe not so minor. It's a good point. (pun intended)
The convention of point releases and major/minor version numbers is
pretty well standard across all software and operating systems.
I might upgrade from 1.1 to 1.1.1 or 1.2 without first looking at what's new.
Not so with 1.x to 2.x.
The date stamps loose all this information. I can't tell you _when_
DOS 2.0 or DOS 4.0 were released, or Win3.1 or JES3 or QEMM6 or Solaris 2.4,
etc. But I sure remember the significance of all these.
I'd sure vote for the "standard" major/minor version numbers. I see no
advantages of the date methods. The dates are meaningless over time.
--
...RickM...
Reply to: