http://ofbiz.116.s1.nabble.com/Short-term-plans-for-official-releases-tp3874085p3926531.html
> Jacopo,
>
> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <
[hidden email]>
>> Hi Jacques,
>>
>> it sounds like a good idea; I would like to suppress the mention to Ubuntu and simply describe the naming convention we use.
>
> Yes sure, it's ok with me
>
> Thanks
>
> Jacques
>
>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Oct 19, 2011, at 8:19 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Jacopo,
>>>
>>> Maybe we could add an explanation on top of the download page, to make things more clear. From
>>>
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Release+Plan#ReleasePlan-GeneralReleasePolicies>>>
>>> We could say
>>>
>>> <<Release branches are created once per year, so far in April . We use the same release numbering scheme than Ubuntu (for
>>> instance, 9.4 means released in 2009.April).>>
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <
[hidden email]>
>>>> Hi Jacques,
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 18, 2011, at 10:10 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The same (than Bruno) was also asked later by Ruth later (in another thread) BTW...
>>>>> What don't you like in the release name convention? The Ubuntu way?
>>>>
>>>> It is not a big deal but, since we have very few releases an old traditional sequence would have worked fine imo.
>>>> Now we have 09.04 but people are confused because they may think there is also a 09.03 or it is not obvious that 09.04 is
>>>> greater than 4.
>>>> And last point, it is not that clear that 09.04 means 2009.04...
>>>>
>>>> But at this point it is fine and imo having one convention and sticking to it is much better than changing it.
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>
>>