April 27, 2010
6:11 p.m.
I'm guessing there's a reason a more "traditional" [ a, ..., z, aa, ab, ... az, ba, ... ] sort of sequence is unsuitable?
Because 2010aa would come before 2010z in alphabetical order.
Perhaps if we're going to change the convention, we ought to solve the issue by switching to numeric release identifiers: 2010-01, -02, ...
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. --Ice Karma