Names and Numbers for Ubuntu (was: On the subject...)
mdz at ubuntu.com
Fri Feb 17 23:53:03 GMT 2006
On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 11:37:48PM +0000, Pete Ryland wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 02:50:46PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 01:00:10PM +0000, Pete Ryland wrote:
> > > BTW, for what it's worth, I dislike the date-based version numbers too,
> > > but would be happy with 2006.1, 2006.2, 2007.1, etc.
> > I find these too long and cumbersome compared to the current format. This
> > is why they were rejected in favour of the current scheme.
> Ok, but then why have the .04 and .10 suffixes which are confusing and also
> a little cumbersome? Why not 6.1 and 6.2 instead then? Or 6.0/6.1?
.0 and .1 have the disadvantage of clashing with traditional software
release numbering, where .0 releases are "special" (usually the first
release of a new product or new branch of code), while in Ubuntu, our
releases are essentially all incremental.
I don't have any particular objection to .1 and .2, but I do prefer the
month-based numbering as it carries more useful information about the
In any case, the 6.04 version number for Dapper is already established.
Given that we're shaking things up in many other ways after Dapper, it's
possible that we could entertain a change at that time.
More information about the sounder