2009/2/4 Thayer Williams <thayerw@gmail.com>:
This is why I'm not fond of codenames.
+1 for not having codenames at all... very difficult to understand which is more 'proper'. It'd also be more
I would prefer a mix of date-related an unrelated versioning like taking the year and then counting the versions in that year up like 2009.1 is the first one in 2009. Of course there is still the possibility that versioning won't fit and we'll have to change the version from 2009.4 to 2010.1 but this can only happen once a year so I think this would be a quite good method. Greetings Stephan Am Mittwoch 04 Februar 2009 05:25:01 schrieb Abhishek Dasgupta: practical
to use versioning for the ISOs which is not dependent on anything else at all; for example the current method uses dates which means if the ISO is not made within the month, the version has to be changed.
If we use kernel versions, it is much better; however there's still the small (though unlikely) chance that a particular kernel cannot be released with an ISO due to some showstopper bug. So the older method of versioning (0.8, 0.9 ...) was better in that sense, since it was not tied to any specific component (spatial, temporal or package).