<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 11:11, Andy Lipscomb <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:AndyLipscomb@decosimo.com">AndyLipscomb@decosimo.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Because 2010aa would come before 2010z in alphabetical order.<br></blockquote><div><br>I knew there was a reason, thank you.<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
That has the flaw of conflicting with the ISO scheme for naming months. If we want to go that way, we should probably just go all the way and append a full date to each release.<br></blockquote><div><br>Hm, and three digits would conflict with day of year naming, and four digits with year naming, ... Ugh. What a morass.<br>
</div></div><br>So in a hypothetical future where we need more than 52 release identifiers, the 53rd would be "zza", the 79th "zzza"? I don't know how generally the rule is described in the relevant documents -- if it doesn't say what to do beyond "zz", we could well end up in the same kind of trouble again...<br>
<br>--Ice Karma<br>