I just came up with a name for the versioning scheme I've been using recently:
Zettelkasten versioning
1, 2, 3, ... 14, 14a, 14b, ... 14z, 14aa, ... 14ak1, 14ak2, ...
zettelkasten.de/introduction/#the-fixed-address-of-each-note
My versions are to communicate identity. That's it. Not ordering, not value, not recency, not stability, not compatibility, not quantity of change, not support duration, just identity. Am I using the same version as you?
(The easiest way to come up with versions also ends up communicating heredity. But that's an unimportant side effect.)
📝 Introduction to the Zettelkasten Method
Learn how the Zettelkasten works as a system, what a Zettel is made of, and how to grow an organic web of knowledge.
I don't understand. If all you care about is identity, why not just use incrementing numeric IDs? The zettelkasten thing is designed specifically to enable hierarchy, isn't it?
Yeah. Upon further reflection, I realized I didn't want my users to have to care about what versions mean. But it is helpful to the programmers to be able to see some indication of the heredity. So I was not right in my final paragraph.
On the other hand, we only see heredity from one side in this scheme.. 🤔
Alternative response: if you provide a single number, people tend to ascribe meaning to it. 14 is closer to 15 than to 16, etc. It seems worth disconnecting that assumption somehow.
Yeah, if identity is all we want, I know this git who has something on offer. 😏