Harald Schilly wrote:
...and to come back on topic: looking back, i think the best version
number for Sage were the release dates (back in the early 0.x time).
Today, a "YYYY-MM" string would be nice (adding a .1 if there is a
second release in the same month).
H
I can't say I agree with that.
Even though the Y.Z numbers of X.Y.Z don't seem to mean a lot, I assume if X was
updated, it would be believed there were significant changes. With a date, one
knows very little indeed about the amount of change. (Of course, you know more
about the date).
Rather than add a .1 if there was two releases in the same month, would it not
be simpler to just have the release date in full? But I still think the current
numbering is better than a date, even though I have my concerns about the
current numbering method.
Dave
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
