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

Re: Debian versioning scheme (r1 vs .1)

also sprach Noah L. Meyerhans <frodo@morgul.net> [2002.11.04.1317 -0500]:
> Everybody has their own opinion.  Personally, I don't mind the r*
> system, but I'd like to do away with "point" releases.  I think we
> should have Debian version 1, version 2, 3, 4, etc.  When you only
> come up with a new release once a year at best, all releases are "major"
> releases.  The change from Debian 2.1 to 2.2 was just as major as from
> 2.2 to 3.0.  

I think if Debian releases 4.0 after 3.0r6 or whatever, then we will
lose credibility (think: there was never an ms office x.y with x >=
6 and y > 0), and we've never used the 0 after the dot. So either we
go to

  Debian III r1


  Debian 3.1               (instead of r1)

or we use 3.0r? for now and call the next release

  Debian 3.1r?

I kind of prefer the last, it also requires no immediate change, just
some consideration when we'll release the next.

Uh, you know that January is coming up and we are on a biannual
schedule, right? Can we release in January, please?

Lastly, I agree with Noah: I don't care about what the version is that
I am running, as long as it's reasonable current and Debian...

 .''`.     martin f. krafft <madduck@debian.org>
: :'  :    proud Debian developer, admin, and user
`. `'`
  `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system

Attachment: pgplGzWpf9R0Z.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: