On 18 August 2010 09:53, Sean Miller <s...@seanmiller.net> wrote: > 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"... >
Release numbers are arbitrary at the behest of the developer who chooses them. We chose YY.DD and it works really well. You can te > So why have the numeric codenames at all? > Because names are obscure. Imagine someone asks for support and wants to know if their release is still supported. As a simple test without looking it up and without thinking, when was Edgy Eft released? I personally don't know without going back in my head over all the releases or working forward from one I happen to know, and I've run every release since 4.10! Compare that to "6.06 LTS" I know just from that the release date (June 2006) and as it's an LTS release it was supported until 2009 (3 years) on the desktop and 2011 (5 years) on the server. You can't get that information from "Dapper Drake" without looking it up. Cheers, Al. -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/