This is a read-only archive. Find the latest Linux articles, documentation, and answers at the new Linux.com!

Linux.com

Re:Using a Version Non-Number

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 14, 2005 11:33 PM
"In which case it is just as easy to use:

@))%)^!$

for the same reasons"

Horsehockey. The date versioning number mentioned relates to something that more or less everyone is familiar with, the only explanation required is the order of the numbers. You can simply say, "It's a year, month, day version number," and everyone will be able to follow it immediately. I defy anyone to explain your example as simply.

"Of course you then still have timezone issues, especially if you release builds on consecutive days... as I indicated, not everyone lives in the US... or the same timezone, or in the same 'day'..."

More nonsense. It doesn't matter where "everyone" lives; it only matters where the developers release from, i.e., that the builds are all released from the same time zone. You have to be able to judge them in relation to each other, not compare them to your watch.

Of course, there are still problems with a completely date driven format in that it only conveys one piece of information, the date, and this is not really enough.

By the way, YYYYMMDD (with or without extra symbols as separators) is not a standard convention in the US any more than it is anywhere else. I don't know of a place where this has always been the norm for date notation. This is a relatively new standard, initiated specifically for computer storage purposes based on alphabetical sort routines, not based on a US date notation. The US standard notation is the nonsensical MM/DD/YYYY, which anyone would find confusing except by virtue of being used to it or being familiar with what it came from, the more fathomable format demonstrated like so: "June 14, 2005." Being from the US, this format is second nature to me, but it is clear to me that it doesn't really make sense when you are dealing purely with numbers.

"There is no such thing as an 'intuitive' standard..."

Perhas not, but that does not mean that an ordered system based on a previously established standard has no superiority over the nonsensical ravings of a lunatic mind.

#

Return to Decline and fall of the version number