The Core Problem with Parrot Version Numbers

[Jonathan Worthington]

jerry gay wrote:
> 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.
>
>   
Not to mention that bytecode version and Parrot version are orthogonal 
anyway.

Jonathan