On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 11:08, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 10:54:53AM +0100, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote: > > 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. > > > Is this a plan so we can catch up to other distributions? > No, most certainly not. I don't see a need to "catch up" with anything. > Seriously, the reason people remember the name is because you never use the > number. apt lines use the name, the directories on the CDs/archives/websites > use the name. Very, very few places use the version numbers, so it's no > surprise you don't remember it. > > So perhaps the real solution is to drop the number altogether and talk about > woody.0 :) > I thought about that, but the people who buy the CDs (they do exist) tend to think in terms of the number on the front. The pattern for that number is a bit random, however it does have a use - if only to remind us which order releases go in. > > 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. > > All our releases are major because there's such a big delay between each. If > we released faster they wouldn't be so major. > I spent a good while trying to make sure the wording didn't suggest anything that could start *this* one up again :) Scott -- Scott James Remnant Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange http://netsplit.com/ things happen? Are you going round the twist?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part