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

Re: Proposal: Debian release numbers

Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
> And just what was it that made those releases minor?  There was no logic
> behind it, it was totally arbitrary.  I'd be willing to bet that over
> 90% of the packages in Debian were changed between any one of those
> minor releases.  Plus you must consider all of the new packages
> available.  The same holds true for a major release like woody.

There was a clear distinction between minor and major releases. Major
releases made changes that impacted every peice of software on the
system; minor releases did not.

1.1 was a major release due to ELF (NB: would have been 1.0)

1.2 was not as the distribution only grew and changed
1.3 likewise

2.0 was a major release due to glibc

2.1 was not as the distribution only grew and changed
2.2 likewise

3.0 was a major release due to an arbitrary decision of the release manager,
    but that's the first time that happened. I hope you're not trying to
    perpetuate that.

It doesn't really matter what percentage of the packages changed in
minor releases[1], the distinction is that in a major release, all (or
all compiled anyway) packages *had* to be changed, in one specific and
significant way that involved a significant transitoon plan. Using a
major release number was also historically a good way to give notice to
our users that the upgrade would be especially involved.

see shy jo

[1] Though I suspect we have not hit 90% modificaton for at least half
    of all our releases.

Attachment: pgpqK4wvTe3md.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: