<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffcc" text="#000000"> Daniel Robitaille wrote: <blockquote cite="mide453abbe0602151554v74b13693v4eac547317441e48@mail.gmail.com" type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">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 </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">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. </pre> </blockquote> 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 </body> </html>