Name that Tree!

[Roberto Ragusa]

Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 11:57:51 -0500,
>   Mail Lists <lists at sapience.com> wrote:
>>   Maybe follow the kernel naming scheme ..
>>
>>   12 is the released version
>>   12.x is what will become 13 ..
>>   13.rc is now a release candidate (no longer development)
>>   13 is released
> 
> Anything related to the next release should have the release number of
> the next release in it's name, not the current release. The 10.91 stuff
> of the past was a pain, because you couldn't use that name to find the
> corresponding parts of mirrors and the number changed for no good reason
> along the way. Just calling it 13 and using the prerelease naming convention
> for the rpm release info works much nicer.

The obvious way to call something which is not 13, but is something
a little less than 13 is 12.9, but I agree with you that it would be better
to have 13 in the name instead of 12, so, logically:

12.0, 12.1, 12.2,     13.-2, 13.-1, 13.0, 13.1, ...

negative numbers as secondary version.
It may appear crazy, but it is indeed reasonable.
(and while not trivial to sort, it's better than "13pre"<"13rc"<"13").

You could for example start alpha at -999, beta at -499, rc at -99 and
have something like:
12.0, 12.1, 12.2,     13.-999, 13.-998, 13.-499, 13.-498, 13.-497, 13.-99, 13.0

It also provides an exciting "count-down to launch" concept :-)

-- 
   Roberto Ragusa    mail at robertoragusa.it