On Thu, April 2, 2015 9:52 am, Always Learning wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2015-04-01 at 22:54 -0700, John R Pierce wrote:
>
>> you guys sure get your panties in a bunch over something as silly as
the
>> iso file name.
>
> You may wear them, many of us don't :-)
>
>> if you don't like the name, rename it... sheesh.
>
> Its about a consistent and logical approach to identifying versions,
revisions and differences between changes.
>
> How is the latest numbering system an improvement ? Marks idea of
>
> {major version}-{sub version}-{mmdd} ......
>
> is clearly a good proposal
>
After all I decide to add "<rant>" tag at the very beginning of my message
instead of just assuming it. Bu before that:
Thanks a lot to CentOS team for the great job you guys are doing!
<rant>
My guess is the lack of understanding of (and sympathy to) your, Mr.
Always Learning, point stems from people missing the very basic thing.
I'll try to explain what I mean.
Us, human, usually do consecutive counting as follows:
A:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 ...
Now, as portion of version identifier doesn't follow this way of counting
anymore, it is akin counting like:
B:
231 2735 2746 3458 5216 ...
This is still in ascending order, still:
1. whereas in case A given you have [sub]version number 4 you definitely
know that adjacent previous is 3 and adjacent following will be 5. Case B
is different: unless you have the whole row of legal numbers in front of
you, you will not be able to guess whether 2746 and 3458 are consecutive
versions, or there is one or more versions between them.
2. comparison of two version in case A easily reveals which is earlier and
which is higher, in case B it is not quite so (you can try to time
yourself on comparison of random natural number in 10000 range and compare
that to the case of natural numbers 0-9, you will know what I mean), and
hence prone to higher chance of error (and don't second guess me: I always
has A+ in mathematics in school and university ;-). This is just a trivial
human psychology...
Valeri
PS I do realize that these big numbers are quite likely just a subset of
indeed consecutive natural numbers, say, counting builds, and only the
ones that are good enough to be released for public use are visible to
public. Still, developers usually have their magic way to keep track of
their consecutive builds and relation to still consecutively numbers
"good" build released to public. Abandoning that is not wise at the very
least. It converts product from being transparent to getting obscure for
everybody. Which only serves the goal of diverting people to much poorer
IMHO alternatives, MS Windows to name one (the only OS of many I know
whose vendor tells you it is unsafe to use it without 3rd party software -
antivirus).
</rant>
You should guess all I say is ran, so I decided to drop resemblig tag at
the beginning ;-)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Valeri Galtsev
Sr System Administrator
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
Phone: 773-702-4247
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++