bzr version numbers

[David Timothy Strauss]

Code names have had the unfortunate effect in Ubuntu of being more broadly 
used than the actual version numbers. Even as a long-time Ubuntu user, I 
have a hard time keeping track of ordering when everything is "Hoary" versus 
"Intrepid."

Granted, they have gone alphabetical post-Dapper, but that's not immediately 
obvious for new users, and Bazaar releases frequently enough that 
alphabetical codenames would run out in under three years.


----- Original Message -----
From: bazaar-bounces at lists.canonical.com 
<bazaar-bounces at lists.canonical.com>
To: bazaar at lists.canonical.com <bazaar at lists.canonical.com>
Sent: Sun Nov 30 23:01:34 2008
Subject: Re: bzr version numbers

"Martin Pool" <mbp at canonical.com> writes:

> Going 1.7, 1.8, 1.9 feels a bit like it's creeping along, whereas
> making them date-based makes a virtual of reliability.

I'm against dates in version strings. It's unnecessarily mixing data
types, for one thing :-) and it makes the version string less easy to
read and say.

> A couple of orthogonal points:
>
> I'd like to add code names so they have a bit more colour, and it's
> more memorable what happened in them.

Yes, this would be a much better idea; arbitrary code names are proven
means to fix a particular project stage in our memory. +1.

-- 
 \                 “What's another word for Thesaurus?” —Steven Wright |
  `\                                                                   |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney