2007/9/19, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
Wow. This clearly got a little bike-sheddy here. I'm sure we all have much better things to do with our time than to read and discuss the ISO naming scheme.
Nope, I'm just trying to find a scheme that clearly differentiate a"major" release from a bugfix release.
Here's the thing: a) YYYY.MM.X as a bug release just doesn't work for the reasons Damir pointed out - it looks like a day.
Arch users are not stupid. ;-) We can even make it 2007.10-2, or 2007.10b etc.
Maybe I'm alone here, but if I can change one character and prevent all of us from answering this question over and over, I'm glad to do it. "Why is it 2007.12.3 when it's the 24th today?"
b) -testing.1, -dev.4, etc... I think we're trying to overspec this.
agree.
Here's a simple solution. If we want internal release, let's use the dot notation that Damir suggest, but why not simply start with rel 0?
2007.12-0.3 -> released as 2007.12-1 2007.12-3.7 -> released as 2007.12-4
We _already_ use the dot notation unofficially for the exact same thing. Again, we're simply alleviating lots of confusion and explanation here.
I only want to make the naming scheme clear for *this* case (that already happened): major release with brand new major kernel version is released on 2007.10. We call it 2007.10.whatever-else-is-coming-here Then there is a bugfix release on November. Should we name it 2007.11.whatever OR 2007.10.some-number-indicating-a-bugfix-release? That's all I'm trying to make clear.
Let's just pick one and be done with this - Jason, Dale, JGC, what do you guys think?
-- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)