[arch-releng] 2009.02 name ideas

[Stephan Platz]

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:
> 2009/2/4 Thayer Williams <thayerw at 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 
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).