On Mon, April 20, 2009 7:30 pm, David Golden wrote: > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes > <sthoe...@efn.org> wrote: > >>> Form (a) is recommended for all new version numbers. >>> Form (b) is allowed for compatibility with legacy version numbering. >> >> Bluntly: No. >> >> >> Use a triple tuple if you like, but I want my versions to be a number >> and only a number. >> >> I'm baffled that you would think dictating otherwise makes sense. >> > > I'm 99% a "just use numbers" guy in my own practice, so I understand > your point of view well. > > "Recommended" does not mean "mandated".
I have some problem with the recommendation of (a), but more problem with the only "allowed for..legacy" of (b). > I think it will help to have > a clear recommendation so that authors who don't read documentation can > just follow a pattern. I don't want to recommend numbers, because authors > that start with numbers and then switch to tuples apparently tend to screw > it up. That seems backwards, but that's just my point of view.
