The Core Problem with Parrot Version Numbers

[jerry gay]

On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 16:29, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 at gmail.com> wrote:
> My only point was that for the detractors, a whimsical naming scheme
> isn't the only possible one that moves us away from X.Y.Z and
> potentially includes the small amount of information we do need to
> convey. Something that does use the year instead of a random name does
> have the benefit that it could be made fixed-width and therefore
> easily usable in things like bytecode. Not that this is a huge selling
> point.
>
sorry, no, the parrot version number will never be fixed-width, in
bytecode or elsewhere. this was tried in the 60's, and i cleaned up
too damned many 2-digit dates in other people's ancient production
code on wall street in 1999 to go with a fixed-width
date/release/version format ever again.

~jerry