Re: Proposal: Debian release numbers
#include <hallo.h>
* Scott James Remnant [Tue, Jan 07 2003, 09:20:54AM]:
> These release numbers have used the "major.minor" form since Debian 1.1,
> with the intent that "major changes" would increment the major number
> and "minor change" would increment the minor number.
>
> However as we saw with the release of woody, there can be quite a bit of
> argument^Wconstructive discussion over exactly what constitutes a major
> enough change to increment the major revision.
Just my 0.02EUR: Let's call it after the year when it is going to
be released. For example, if Sarge will be ready in this year (what I
doubt), it would be called 3.1, and Sarge+1, released 2004, will be
Debian 4.0, Sarge+2 somewhere end of 2002 would be called 4.1, etc.
Why this? A long development period is an indicator for major changes,
eg. gcc-3.2 transition. Just changing the major number to be proud of
some new version does not work, since the freeze time is so long that
that we often release with outdated software. Numbers and names are for
marketing people. They should go along with markable changes. Internal
improvements are not often not interessting enough for "end-users".
Gruss/Regards,
Eduard.
--
Das ist halt der Unterschied: Unix ist ein Betriebssystem mit Tradition,
die anderen sind einfach von sich aus unlogisch. -- Anselm Lingnau
Reply to: