bzr version numbers
David Timothy Strauss
david at fourkitchens.com
Mon Dec 1 08:24:43 GMT 2008
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
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 |
More information about the bazaar