[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Naming of new 2.0 release


we are about releasing a new set of hamm.

After we have released bo as 1.3 and increased the version number when
we had released an updated bo with security fixes as 1.3.1 and we received
several complaints we came to the following conclusion.

The version number of a release is not going to be increased when we
make sub-releases of the distribution.  Instead the postfix "r<number>"
will be added.

This should be able to be proved in old archives of debian-devel[1].

The problem of increasing the version number such as releasing 2.0.1
and 2.0.2 is that many people, vendors, book stores etc. will think
that this is a completely new version of Debian and the "old" ond
is obsolete.

This will make it impossible for CD vendors to sell the distribution
since it will be "hopelessly" outdated when his cd's visit the market.
As a result this will make it difficult for many poeple to use Debian
since the CD vendors can't press cd's because nobody[2] would buy

Therefore I *strongly* object against calling the upcoming release
2.0.1.  We really, really should call it 2.0 r1 instead.  Yes, this
is a big difference.

Regards... Joey

[1] I remember the discussion since I was one of the people objecting
    to the new naming scheme but have changed my mind after several
    months/years of user support.

[2] Ok, few people still would buy them, but you can't press the CDs
    in mass production then.

Individual Network e.V.     .     Martin Schulze     .        OrgaTech
joey@office.individual.net            _/              joey@orgatech.de
Geschaeftszeit: Di+Mi+Fr, 15-18 Uhr  _/            Tel: (0441) 9834715

Reply to: