Re: Hugs' build system

On Sunday 25 February 2007 14:44, Neil Mitchell wrote:
> >    * I think we should abandon version names like "Sep2006" and go for
> > the usual numerical even/odd numbering scheme. This more consistent with
> > the rest of the world and makes it easier for tools to determine e.g.
> > which version is newer. I am not sure if we have ever released a
> > numerical version, so I propose to call the current version 0.9 (odd,
> > because it is a developer version) and bump it to 1.0 for the next
> > release.
>
> I like Sep2006, I think its cute, and I would actually rather the rest
> of the world moved to this system. However, I don't care enough to be
> the person who stops this. [...]

While I think that versions like "Sep2006" are nicer for humans, I have 
serious doubts that the tons of SW out there to handle packages (rpm, apt, 
yum, yast, ... plus probably quite a few home-grown ones) handle such 
versions correctly. Will all of these programs e.g. consistently determine 
that "Apr2005" is newer than "Mar2004"? I doubt that, and instead of trying 
to change the world I simply propose that we follow a common numbering 
scheme. Perhaps we can revisit this decision in a few years, when the world 
is a better place... ;-)

Cheers,
   S.