Re: Proposal: Debian release numbers
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 09:41:42AM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> This sort of bickering over what justifies a "minor" change as opposed
> to a "big" change is exactly why we should stop pretending that that
> there is a sensible way of distinguishing the two. Just use unique
> ascending integers to distinguish releases and be done with this archaic
> major.minor system. There is no proposal that will be able to give sane,
> explainable, and reproducible criteria for a major.minor system for
> debian.
[snip]
Exactly. And if people have a beef against using minor numbers for release
updates, we can just stick with the existing rZ scheme. So we'll have
Debian 4 (sarge), Debian 4r2 (sarge), etc.. A version number is just a
version number; what is important is simply that it is incremented every
time we make a release. So why not have a simple, single-integer system
which is completely unambiguous as to what the next version number should
be, rather than a major.minor system where there is an unnecessary and
meaningless choice between (x+1).0 and x.(y+1). (Leading to lots of time
and energy spent debating the issue, but gives no productive results.)
T
--
"640K ought to be enough" -- Bill G., 1984. "The Internet is not a primary
goal for PC usage" -- Bill G., 1995. "Linux has no impact on Microsoft's
strategy" -- Bill G., 1999.
Reply to: