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

Re: Naming of new 2.0 release

Why are we having this discussion all over again?

For those who don't remember or weren't around the last time... After we
released Debian 1.3.1, we got feedback from the silver CD vendors saying
that the change of version number was hurting them, that 1.3.1 made 1.3
look obsolete to Joe Consumer who doesn't read debian-devel and doesn't
know how our release system works. So we decided, for *marketing reasons*
to change the numbering scheme to something that (hopefully) makes it more
obvious to Joe Consumer that only a few files have changed between 1.3 and
1.3.1. After considering many proposals (yes, someone did propose 1.3-2,
etc.), we decided on 1.3.1 r2, etc. That way, we can explain that between
new *versions* of Debian (1.3, 2.0, etc.), just about every file changes,
but between new *releases* of the same version (2.0r1, 2.0r2), only a few
files change. It's the exact *same* process as Debian 1.2, 1.2.1, 1.2.2,
just a different naming scheme, for marketing reasons.

There *is* a changelog inside the stable directory, so you can know which
files have changed since the last release. Silver CD vendors *should* state
somewhere on the box that their CD is "release 2", so that people can still
know exactly what they're buying.

As far as I can see from readings the whole thread, nothing has changed
since the 1.3.1rx days. No new arguments, etc. So can we please go on using the same
version/release distinction that we used for 1.3.1 and actually get "Debian
2.0 release 2" released? Guy?


PS My excuses if I sounded a bit inflammatory... I just really wasn't
expecting this "blast from the past".

Attachment: pgpvrO8CqtNJO.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: