From: James Britt <jamesUNDERBARb@...>
Date: 2004-07-12T01:23:22+09:00
Subject: Re: Business application building with Ruby

Gavin Sinclair wrote:

>>Then how about using dates as versions?  Call the release made tomorrow
>>20040712.
> 
> 
>>That won't drive off users who are going to make the reasonable assumption
>>that anything below 1.1 can't be trusted for real work, it'll let you
>>distinguish one release from another, and everyone wins.
> 
> 
> It's not a reasonable assumption.  The points made against that
> assumption by various people carry more logic than your mere
> assertion.
> 
> Using dates betrays any notion of a planned release schedule, so it's
> not a win-win situation.

Two apps, both at version x.y.z, may be in very different states of 
reliability and feature creep.

But for any given release if you are using Foo 0.2.0, and see  that 
version 0.2.1 is out, it should mean something different than if 0.3.0 
comes out.

Dates do not allow one to indicate if a release is major or minor.

The version numbers of a given app should at least serve as some sort of 
code/feature "distance" marker, though the meaning will vary among 
applications.

If there is any sort of consensus among Rubyists on release number 
guidelines then perhaps some kind soul may offer to write them up and 
put them on rubygarden.