On 07/08/2014 9:53 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Le 07/08/2014 15:08, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
and the first minor release number is always 01, then 02, then 03 and
so on.
The only part where you are wrong is the major release number that is
"13.07" and not, as you assume, "13". As explained in the docs our
major release number is in the format: YY.MM
Frankly speaking I don't like the format of the major release number
(as I mentioned a few times) but it is what it is and changing it now
may add further confusion.
Can't we say that it follows the Ubuntu way, is that so creasy? I'm
alone in this world to know that Ubuntu exists? What about Windows 95,
98?
It is not crazy but not everyone has run Ubuntu or knows how they work
with versions.
Redhat has a completely different pattern which is different from Centos
and Fedora.
Windows might in fact be crazy and if you have ever had to support
Windows users you would know that it is sometimes hard to get a straight
answer about versions from end-users since they confuse MS-Office with
Operating Systems in an enterprise setting where the server is running
Windows-2008 supporting Windows-7 desktops using MS-Office 2011.
I hope that my suggestions for amending the docs will help clarify the
version pattern to new System Administrators who are just trying to be
comfortable with the pattern of releases.
Ron
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning#Date_of_Release
I don't like numbers like 7.0.75, really not!
Jacques
Jacopo
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: [email protected]
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
