OSDev.org

Hi,

AR wrote: Why not? They already use that sometimes (eg. 20050211 for whatever version was released on 11th Feburary 2005), certainly be easier to understand.

Wouldn't " 20050211" mean it was released on the 20th of May, in the year 211 (rather than the 2nd of November)?

Perhaps build numbers followed by an identifying character (e.g. "#12345A for an alpha release). That way you could make 2 released on the same day without confusion...


Cheers,

Brendan

And from which mainline was your build derived, pray tell? The maintenance mainline, or the development one?

And once you start to cater for that, you're back in version number country. Or changing your product's name with every release. Bah.

You know me as not being the one sayign "that's how we always did it". But I haven't seen a good case for either build numbers or "date" releases yet, apart from the very singular problem of alphanumerical sorting, which I consider neglectable compared to the additional information implied in good old major.minor.

The date is written backwards as a standard for information interchange (ISO 8601).

Can you please explain how the version number implies anything other than how recent the build is? 2.16.1 tells me nothing about what branch it came from.