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

Re: Debian versioning scheme (r1 vs .1)

On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 03:57:05PM +0100, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
> Could one of the old time Debianers give the major steps that were taken
> with each release? Then it would at least be possible to get an idea of
> how big the difference between a major and a minor version increase was
> in the past.

?? -> 1.1   (there was no 1.0)
  AFAIK this was the a.out -> ELF transition.  Also, of course, moving
  from 0.x to 1.x means "there are no major parts missing".

1.3.1 -> 2.0  (bo -> hamm)
  libc5 -> libc6 transition

2.2 -> 3.0  (potato -> woody)
  Introduction of "testing" distribution

I think it's appropriate to use major version numbers for large
structural changes and when compatibility is broken, and to use
minor increments for everything else.  Since Debian places a heavy
emphasis on backwards compatibility (at least it used to), we haven't
had many reasons to bump the major number.

Regardless of my own opinion, however, I'm happy to let the release
manager decide.  It's one of the few perks of a stressful job :-)

Richard Braakman

Reply to: