3 ms·
Ubuntu’s backwards-date versioning system is offensive enough on its own.
by callalex 3y ago
Ubuntu’s backwards-date versioning system is offensive enough on its own.
- Scoundreller 3y agoWhy? It sorts so nicely!
- naruhodo 3y agoBut what about the 2100 problem?!?
- toast0 3y ago100.3 or whatever
- Daviey 3y agoUbuntu wouldn't be the first product to change their versioning system for releases. I don't think we need to get too worried about what will happen in 76 years from now.
- red-iron-pine 3y agoyeah just rebaseline it for something big and different. Ubuntu NT 1.1
- naruhodo 3y agoUnbuNTu
- renewiltord 3y agoWhat do you mean backwards-date? It's how someone would do it naturally. Like when we say one thousand, we do 1000, not 0001, most significant to least significant. I suppose we use mostly little-endian computers, so perhaps you'd expect to see it as 01.32 to correspond, but that would seem quite confusing to everyone, wouldn't it? A point-release would be 1.01.32? And the tenth point-release (god forbid) would be 01.01.32? I suppose we could put it at the end and get 01.32.1 but that then has it go up and down all over the place. I think what they picked is quite natural: most-sig to least-sig. 23.10.1 has year.month.point-release