Exactly. I don't get it. What's the advantage here? If the complaint is "semver numbers aren't always used the way they are meant to be" how does (what is effe

Exactly. I don't get it. What's the advantage here? If the complaint is "semver numbers aren't always used the way they are meant to be" how does (what is effectively) `v<year>.<month>.<day>` solve that problem? With SemVer the numbers are at least _sometimes_ used as designed. If the complaint is "I want to know how old the software is" then why not just append a timestamp to the SemVer number as in `v2.3.4-<date>` What's the advantage of making the date primary? Does the breaking-change identifier only refer to the previous version chronologically? Then this system is incompatiable with any scenario in which you need to "patch" old versions of the software. And isn't that a pretty central problem that version numbers are meant to address? I honestly don't understand the problem chronological versioning is solving, or if I do than it seems to me that `<semver>-<date>` is obviously a better way to solve it.