On Wed, 08 Jan 2003, Corrin Lakeland wrote: > Personally I prefer just calling things by the year they're released > and forgetting about version numbers entirely. Save for the fact that this gets ugly fast. (Debian v2003? or worse, Debian v03? [Does this mean we can't release sarge in '03? ;-)]) [And really, who cares what year woody was released besides a historian? It doesn't tell me anything more about what packages make up woody.] > This also neatly avoids silly arguments like RedHat is at version 8, > and Debian's at version 3, so RedHat must be more advanced. Eh. The people who care to argue that are probably better off thinking that RH is more advanced. The number scheme that Debian uses has been around for quite a while, and no one has really given any decent technical (or even social) reason why we shouldn't stick with the status quo and let the RM decide if the new release merits a major number increase or a >1 minor number increase. Don Armstrong -- I leave the show floor, but not before a pack of caffeinated Jolt gum is thrust at me by a hyperactive girl screaming, "Chew more! Do more!" The American will to consume more and produce more personified in a stick of gum. I grab it. -- Chad Dickerson http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
pgpSxd8ZBkA2C.pgp
Description: PGP signature