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

Re: Proposal: Debian release numbers



On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 09:20:54AM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> I therefore propose that we alter the scheme for release numbers as
> follows.
> 
> Debian stable releases will be identified by their code name and a single
> release number, starting at the next whole number (4) and incrementing it
> for each new stable release.  The next stable release would therefore be
> "Debian 4 (sarge)", the release after "Debian 5 (etch)", and so on.

I think this is a great idea!

When people talk about debian, they always refer to 'hamm', 'potato',
'woody', 'bo', etc. This is a good indicator that our version numbering
system is not memorable. We should definitely be including the codename
in all version numbers so that people understand which debian they have.

Not to mention, I think every one of our code-named releases constitute a
major upgrade. Even as a debian developer I would be hard pressed to tell
you what the version number of potato(!) was without looking it up. A single
number always accompanied by the codename people remember is sure to be more
understandable to users as well as reinforce the codename<->number mapping.

> Revisions of the stable release, which currently use the "X.YrZ" form of
> release number, would instead append and increment a minor number to the
> release.  The first revision of sarge would therefore be
> "Debian 4.1 (sarge)", the second "Debian 4.2 (sarge)", and so on.

This makes more sense too. People often ask me what the rZ is about. I
explain it is like a patch-level and they understand. However, this is not
accurate. I believe that because people ask this question and that because
the easiest way to explain it is wrong, we should conclude that this system
is also not working.

> I think that sarge is the most appropriate time to adopt this proposal.
> "Debian 4" would naturally follow on from "Debian 3.0" without causing
> any confusion, while at the same time implying the change in release
> number scheme by dropping the ".0" suffix.

I whole-heartedly agree with this!

---
Wes

Attachment: pgpydjfbcCKtw.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: