With today's release of version 2019.2.10, I'm kind of confused on the conventions of naming. Shouldn't it have been 2019.3? Isn't 2019.2.10 confusing, as it can be identified as 2019.2.1?
No, they're not the same. One is dot-one, the other is dot-ten. The dots are just a character separating three separate numbers. They do not indicate a decimal point or anything like that.
Version numbers are written like x.y.z, where x is a major version, y is a branch within that major version, and z is a hotfix level within that branch. There is no rule that certain values of z or y should automatically change the values of x or y. A version number is not a decimal number. And just to clarify, no 2019.2.10 cannot ever be identified as 2019.2.1. 2019.2.10 is the 10th fix level within the 2 branch of the Unity 2019 major version. 2019.2.1 is only the 1st fix level within that same branch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning
2019.3 is on its own release cycle largely independent of fixes to 2019.2.x, so following your idea would be extremely confusing at minimum. https://forum.unity.com/forums/2019-3-beta.337/
The format is year.month.release technically there is also a .build after that they aren’t decimals, you can have a product 2.15.100. The format isn’t also universal so other apps you might find tend to be major release.minor release.patch.build
It is not year.month.release. It is major.minor.build, and the major portion roughly correlates with the year.
I see what you did there. It’s actually becoming quite common in the industry, and is fairly useful to know how old a system is. If I’m using Apache 2.0, I have no idea when it came out. Ubuntu uses the same year and month format.
Wouldn't major.minor.patch be more accurate since builds usually refer to the number of times you've made a build?