The Core Problem with Parrot Version Numbers

Andrew Whitworth wknight8111 at gmail.com
Fri Feb 20 00:09:36 UTC 2009


On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Geoffrey Broadwell <geoff at broadwell.org> wrote:
> I disagree, and I've never liked the word naming scheme (I guess I have
> failure to whimsy) -- though I admit that the monthly numbers are a nice
> addition that makes the word scheme suck less.  However, I've said my
> peace.

ENOWHIMSY

Even if we don't like the specific implementation discussed here (it's
very similar to what Ubuntu does, but I suggest we stay away from the
asinine alliterative adjectives) there are plenty of ways to take this
same concept and make it less whimsical. I've known other programs
(Matlab being an example near and dear to my heart) that used the year
in the name: 2009r1 .. 2009r12, 2010r1, ... We could also tack on
patch numbers and other stuff like 2009r5.01 or whatever we want. I'm
not necessarily recommending this scheme, but it is an example of
chromatic's idea with years instead of alphabetical names. In any
case, I think we definitely should ditch the X.Y.Z scheme since it
just doesn't fit our release model in any sense.

--Andrew Whitworth


More information about the parrot-dev mailing list