Personally I prefer the codenames to the "version numbers", which aren't really version numbers at all but rather the month/year the release occurred.
There is no evidence, as far as I can see, that 9.04 and 9.10 are any more similar than 9.10 and 10.04, therefore the "accepted" rules regarding "release numbers" (ie. 1.4 1.41 1.42 1.5 1.51 1.52 denotes major and minor releases) don't apply so 10.04 is NOT a "release number" imho and has no more significance in that regard than "Lucid" or "Karmic"... So why have the numeric codenames at all? Sean -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
