Hi, > > If we bump the major version each year anyway, why not go the whole way > > and use 2018.1, 2018.2, ... (or even <year>.<month>)? The nice thing > > about that is that you can see at a glance when the release took place. > > ... or simply drop the first two digits and call them 18.1, 18.2, ...?
We could also drop the major/minor scheme altogether (as they are meaningless anyway) and just go for YYMM, i.e. 1808 (for a august release). If we go for a time-based numbering scheme: I'd prefer the year being part of the version number, for the same reason Thomas mentioned above: It makes it easy to see when a particular version was released. cheers, Gerd
