Axel Beckert <a...@debian.org> writes: > To demonstrate my point, please sort the following version numbers in > your head:
> * 20110111.0 > * 20101111.1 > * 20111111.2 > * 9.20111211 > * 9.20111121 > And now compare the same dates, but written with punctuation: > * 2011.01.11.0 > * 2010.11.11.1 > * 2011.11.11.2 > * 9.2011.12.11 > * 9.2011.11.21 For me, the first block is much clearer than the second block, since it makes it more obvious that those are dates. With the second, I have a lot more confusion over whether those are actually minor and patch release versions. I don't have a lot of trouble sorting them in my head. I realize that people vary, and the fact that I don't have trouble doesn't mean other people won't. But personally I prefer Joey's way of writing those version numbers. (Obviously, dashes would be even better than either periods or nothing, but sadly that adds a bunch of additional complexity.) Now, the one thing I'd add there is that I *do* use periods as you describe for packages where the version is *only* a date. The confusion that I see only happens when you're adding a version and a date, since then my brain sees four parts and really struggles with parsing it as a date. Plus sort of helps a little, but 9+2011.12.11 still looks rather confusing to me. I expect that version to indicate a Git snapshot of development following a version 9 release. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
