I agree with this, not only because it works in a clean and unambiguous way, but also because the Boss says so. This is clearly an Executive decision, and it is the kind of ruling that Bryce is the right guy to make. Easier than the Solomon/baby thing, but still, he must deal with a bunch of ignorant primadonnas like us. :-)
bob
On 10/9/2009 5:27 PM, Bryce Harrington wrote:
A compromise that retains but augments our current numbering scheme could be:
YEAR.SVG_COMPLIANCE.INCREMENTAL_NUMBER
So for example, we'd have:
2008.0.46 2009.0.47 2010.0.48 2010.0.49 ... 2010.1.00
Retains the same meaning and history of our current numbering scheme, plus makes the leftmost number more appealing to the wider userbase.
(I'm just throwing this idea out there, not advocating for it; I've no problems with our current numbering scheme, and am not really active enough in development these days to warrant having an opinion. But hey, unpainted bike shed!)
Bryce