Re: Why is sarge 3.1?
On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 01:51:15PM -0700, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Forgive me if this has been discussed before. I searched the archives of
> debian-user, debian-devel, and debian-release, and saw nothing about
> It appears that Sarge will be called 3.1. Why is that? I personally
> think it should be 4.0, as do many others I have spoken with..
> 1) Kernel v2.2 is no longer available on install, much less the default.
> 2) The installer was totally rewritten.
> 3) [the big one] gcc-3's C++ ABI is totally incompatible with
> gcc-2.95's. This alone should force a major number upgrade. What if I
> have my critical custom C++ applications running on woody, and I see
> "Oh, 3.0 to 3.1.. I'll dist-upgrade, its no big deal" .. blammo,
> everything breaks!
> Am I crazy? Is it too late to bring this up? Wrong forum?
It's probably too late; we've already started changing various programs
and documentation to assume 3.1. Maybe 4.0 would've been better but I
think by now we should just make sure the release notes are complete.
Colin Watson [firstname.lastname@example.org]