[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Axiom-developer] Re: Gold
From: |
C Y |
Subject: |
[Axiom-developer] Re: Gold |
Date: |
Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:55:30 -0700 (PDT) |
--- address@hidden wrote:
> I'd prefer the binary numbering scheme to reflect the date
> of the gold version, so the Gold Sept 2007 version would be
> axiom-7.9.0.tgz
> (that is, Sept, 2007 == 7.9). This will be unique and clear.
It will, but it would break the user convention of major
version number updates corresponding to major user visible
changes/improvements. I very much think that version
numbers constitute a sort of "advertising" in the sense
that users are trained to expect less or more from a
release depending on the type of version number change.
For example, Emacs 21 to Emacs 22 produced many major
user visible improvements. Likewise with OpenOffice.org
versions 1 and 2. Presumably Mathematica works
like this, although I haven't seen various versions in
person so I don't know.
If that is your preference Tim I'm willing to go along,
but it might be worth thinking a moment how we will
catch people's attention when a version with major user
visible changes comes out. I.e., how do we say "if you
didn't like the user interface before, this version has
a new one so it's time to check again?" What if that
happens between 10.1 and 10.2?
Cheers,
CY
____________________________________________________________________________________
Tonight's top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the hottest shows on
Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/