R3ap3R

That's because he left it alone, by its poor self, and went to get smokes

GodofGrunts

The kernel must of thought that her (yes it's a girl) daddy when to go get smokes and was never coming back...

__________________

version2

Yes, and the American way of doing that is not logical. The thing is, if you see "8.2.1" as a version number, always assume it is Year.Month.Day. If it was Year.Day.Month, the version numbers would get all screwed up (February 10 2008 > February 19 2008? No!)

dangerousHobo

OCNix-v.2008.02

OCNix- dev that built it . year . month (optional -built_number)

Just a suggestion. Might be better in the long run then the short as at first there will most likely be lots of builds.

__________________
"UNIX was never designed to keep people from doing stupid things, because that policy would also keep them from doing clever things." - Doug Gwyn

Try out the latest Programming Challenge

CPU-Z Validation @ 2.97-prime95 stable 16 hours @ 1.48v Proof | CPU-Z Validation @ 3.15

Getting Mouse Side Buttons to work in Linux, Compile a custom Kernel, More

R3ap3R

Since there is windows 95,98, etc, how about:

OCNix08-v.02-build {TAG-optional}

as OCNix - year - v (month) - build #, and {TAG} could be like {BETA} , etc

13 3 @ 7 l 3 13 0 y

I like succinctness in version numbers, lol, like putting b for beta.

OCNix v.02b|08

where 02 is the build, b is beta, and 08 is the year. Simple, to the point. contains all the info.

__________________
My cynical ranting: pet peeves on OCN
-people who say merely "do want" and reduce the reply box to a checklist of your emotions.
-people who misuse "a" and "an"
-people who think posting inane pictures makes them clever or funny
-people who will inevitably try to reply to me with all three of the above.

dangerousHobo

Typical unix convention though is to tack on the build number for that release on the end.

Like:
OCNix-2008.02-5

Where the -5 means the fifth build of release 2008.02

__________________
"UNIX was never designed to keep people from doing stupid things, because that policy would also keep them from doing clever things." - Doug Gwyn

Try out the latest Programming Challenge

CPU-Z Validation @ 2.97-prime95 stable 16 hours @ 1.48v Proof | CPU-Z Validation @ 3.15

Getting Mouse Side Buttons to work in Linux, Compile a custom Kernel, More

mrtn400

Or we could use the version system that almost every other piece of software uses:

X.X.X.XXXX
or
MajorVersion.MinorVersion.Release.Build

That should keep confusion to a minimum.

version2

I like this. Except I don't understand the logic for the month leading with a zero. It should be: OCNix 2008.2-5
OCNix 2008.11-2
etc,.

I think the addition of alpha/beta is unnecessary. I know for the Linux kernel, however, that they add "-rc1" to the end of the version string to denote a release candidate.

biatchi

I'm confused with all the different naming schemes. Somebody should make a poll

__________________