--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I'd prefer the binary numbering scheme to reflect the date > of the gold version, so the Gold Sept 2007 version would be > axiom-7.9.0.tgz > (that is, Sept, 2007 == 7.9). This will be unique and clear.
It will, but it would break the user convention of major version number updates corresponding to major user visible changes/improvements. I very much think that version numbers constitute a sort of "advertising" in the sense that users are trained to expect less or more from a release depending on the type of version number change. For example, Emacs 21 to Emacs 22 produced many major user visible improvements. Likewise with OpenOffice.org versions 1 and 2. Presumably Mathematica works like this, although I haven't seen various versions in person so I don't know. If that is your preference Tim I'm willing to go along, but it might be worth thinking a moment how we will catch people's attention when a version with major user visible changes comes out. I.e., how do we say "if you didn't like the user interface before, this version has a new one so it's time to check again?" What if that happens between 10.1 and 10.2? Cheers, CY ____________________________________________________________________________________ Tonight's top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the hottest shows on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list Axiom-developer@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer