Re: Debian versioning scheme (r1 vs .1)
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 12:55:47PM +0100, Emile van Bergen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 06:30:33AM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
We shouldn't release 4.0, we should release 4. And the next one should
be 5, and then 6. The minor number is absolutely meaningless and should
be abandoned. For other distributions it might have a meaning (e.g.,
redhat tends to support security only for the final minor number in the
last major series--but our minors are completely arbitrary and have no
such encoded meaning.)
Well, as long as the scheme is used, there's at least the freedom to
indicate smaller or larger steps of progress among releases.
But we don't have any such steps. Hence "completely arbitrary".
This may have no meaning for computers, but it may have for humans
("Let's see now, Debian has released a version with a new major number,
there should be quite some changes. I'm curious, maybe I should give it
I'll let you in on a secret--there are major changes with *every* new
debian release, and you should *always* upgrade, because we don't have
the resources to support old releases indefinately.