- cross-posted to:
- foss
You must log in or register to comment.
I’m still saucy (in magnitude, bechamel not mole) that the version numbering is yy.n (24.2) and not yy.nn (24.02). The actual versioning combines the “was there a version .1?” problem with a sorting issue if there’s both 24.2 and 24.10.
Could I get a whole saucy magnitude scale from you?
Let’s see.
Bearnaise
Bechamel
Apple
Pesto
Ketchup
Sweet BBQ
Chimichurri
Gravy
Panang
Romesco
Tabasco
Mustard BBQ
Vinegar BBQ
Mustard
Mole
GarumThe scale admittedly ramps up exponentially at the end there.
Why single zero though? Why not 24.002? With single 0 you will still encounter sorting issue past version 24.99 (if there was one).
Well I think it should be a single 0 because Ubuntu’s naming has now established the standard that if the second part of the name suggests month, it is written using two numbers eg 23.10, 24.04, etc. 10 is used for October and 04 is used for April.
Why not SemVer? It would look so simple and logical. I don’t need to know the release year as an user, stability and convenience is what I looking for. I can decide, update this thing it not, just by looking at major version number, but date tells me nothing about backward compatibility
but date tells me nothing about backward compatibility
The date IS the major/minor version. Knowing when the thing was released is bonus metadata. A lot of people find it useful.
Okay, so be it. I want to emphasize that the purpose of numbering has shifted from technical to marketing. For development purposes, it was better before.
Doesn’t help that the date based release looks a lot like semantic versioning which a confusing a lot of people. Should’ve just used Ubuntu’s standard of ‘yy.mm’ instead of ‘yy.m’
From a brief skim, it looks like 7.6 is their LTS, and 24.2 is stable?