So, Sonar X3c needs a fix to correct a small problem with console emulator hum.  People already have it in their heads that X3d is going to have the much anticipated video enhancements.  So what is CW to do?  Release X3d.a?  Or X3d.01?
 
If We'd had X3.1, X3.2 and X3.3, CW could release a quick fix X3.3.1, and it would not confuse those waiting on X3.4.
 
Just my thoughts out loud here, but doesn't using a letter for patch revision versions paint the bakers into somewhat of a corner?

quick fix.

Got to admit that what it is called doesn't concern me. I can understand how it could cause some confusion but honestly I think it is a non-issue. I've had this conversation with a team of software developers and it struck me then that it was kind of bizarre. At the time I think I said something along the lines of "If the flaws are fixed nobody gives 'blah' what we call it."
 
Just my opinion though...
 
Regards,
 
 

Tell people effected to roll back to X3b perhaps, or stop using console emulation... and ask people to patiently wait for X3D.
Quickfixes whilst nice will slow down Cake's overall development time for main patches (i.e. X3D), I would hope Cake has abandoned quickfixes however tempting it may be to fix issues immediately.

I personally like more the updates in any convention used (i.e., combinations of letters and numbers or whatever) than quick fixes. On the other hand, we are already used to XNx convention since X1 and that is one of the reasons for using conventions. 

CW is not prohibited from also using numbers along with letters if they choose.
 
 

Traditionally, letters have been used for unreleased builds, in-house versions for QA to evaluate. Using a letter designation makes the release sound more trivial, as if the only fixes were some un-dotted i's. 
 
Note that internal file versions still follow traditional major.minor.build numbering schemes. The letter designations are purely a marketing gimmick.
 
I blame it on Microsoft, which screwed everything up when they released Windows 95, making it acceptable to abandon a version numbering scheme that had been working just fine for half a century prior. This is what happens when engineers yield control of a company to Marketing.

Don't the letters indicate released changes to a code branch marked OBSOLETE (X3) . In other words, development on this branch will not continue indefinitely. Any changes worth keeping will have to be merged to the current Trunk of the code (X4?).
 
Letter builds are full releases. They are tested within reason. When you modify branched code, there is always a risk you will fail to merge key fixes into the trunk of the source code. Project managers can group these changes by letter and refer to them that way, making it clear to everyone that these changes were not made first in the trunk but in a branch destined to be obsolete.
 
Just a guess.

I think what it boils down to is that most people aren't software engineers and probably identify more with letters or words than numbers. That is to say, they have a harder time keeping track of a decimal naming convention in their minds than a letter based one. Decimals are math and hence scary.

bitflipper
I blame it on Microsoft, which screwed everything up when they released Windows 95, making it acceptable to abandon a version numbering scheme that had been working just fine for half a century prior. This is what happens when engineers yield control of a company to Marketing.

Then what about Firefox crew - started from v5 updating major version with every release - just about every month. What a stunt that is. Are they now at v20, or?