Richard Braakman wrote: > ?? -> 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 And remember that there was some dissention about using 3.0 for woody, partly because there was no such major upgrade in it. Aside from woody, we've had very good reasons for incrementing the major versions, I guess only time will tell if breaking that precedent as we did for woody will make the whole versioning scheme "completely arbitrary" or not. Of course, this whole discussion may be somewhat moot if nobody ever figures out how to go about the gcc 3.0 transition (which may warrent a major version bump if we ever do it). -- see shy jo
Attachment:
pgpoGHKU5Q7SD.pgp
Description: PGP signature