On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 09:44:03AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > Hi, > > > > If we bump the major version each year anyway, why not go the whole way > > > and use 2018.1, 2018.2, ... (or even <year>.<month>)? The nice thing > > > about that is that you can see at a glance when the release took place. > > > > ... or simply drop the first two digits and call them 18.1, 18.2, ...?
> We could also drop the major/minor scheme altogether (as they are > meaningless anyway) and just go for YYMM, i.e. 1808 (for a august > release). I don't much like that - it'll lead to a wierd progression of numbers where we'll be constantly the rationale re-explaining to people who want to know why we've jumped from 1808 to 1902 to 1905 etc Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|