Closed peterjc closed 6 years ago
Under your convention I would expect 0Y to be a two digit year with leading zero, e.g. year 2006 --> 06 and year 2016 -> 16.
0Y
06
16
It would be sensible to restrict this to 2000 to 2099 only to avoid ambiguity, or define year 2123 --> 123 here?
123
e.g. We could then describe this versioning scheme as MAJOR.0Y.0M.0D: https://ics.hutton.ac.uk/tablet/download-tablet/ https://ics.hutton.ac.uk/tablet/download-tablet/tablet-release-notes/
MAJOR.0Y.0M.0D
Pushed the update for this new terminology, thank you!
Under your convention I would expect
0Y
to be a two digit year with leading zero, e.g. year 2006 -->06
and year 2016 ->16
.It would be sensible to restrict this to 2000 to 2099 only to avoid ambiguity, or define year 2123 -->
123
here?e.g. We could then describe this versioning scheme as
MAJOR.0Y.0M.0D
: https://ics.hutton.ac.uk/tablet/download-tablet/ https://ics.hutton.ac.uk/tablet/download-tablet/tablet-release-notes/