On the subject of naming the Dapper successor

[Mark Shuttleworth]

Daniel Robitaille wrote:
>> Maybe we could get rid of the month number, and number them
>> sequentially ? This way people won't wonder if there exist an Ubuntu
>> 6.05 or 6.06 that's better than their 6.04. Numbering the months kinda
>> implies that there is a version each month. If we just use sequential
>> numbers, maybe that's clearer.
>>
>> 2006.1
>> 2006.2
>> 2007.1
>> 2007.2
>>
>>     
> I was going to propose exactly that.  From what I can see, there has
> been two type of confusions about our version numbers:
>
> *) some people didn't realized that version "4", "5" or "6" meant the
> year it was released.  Having the full year solves that one
>
> *) there has been confusion and some thought that .10 meant .1, thus
> 5.10 (in their mind 5.1) would be an older version than  5.04 (in
> their mind 5.4)
>
> I'm not a big fan of 2006.04  2006.10 since it seems to imply that we
> are missing some versions and users would then ask  "where is
> 2006.06???"
>
> So like Vicent, I like 2006.1, 2006.2, 2007.1, etc.
>
> Another possible option would be something like 2006a, 2006b, 2007a, 2007b, etc.
>   
Well, as Matt pointed out the short year is cleaner and simpler, and
still accurate. I do aree that the decimal point can confuse folks,
since .10 is less than .4.

How about 6-04?

Does the dash reduce the risk of sort-order confusion?

Mark

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/sounder/attachments/20060219/20d37eb9/attachment.htm