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

Re: debian sarge is 3.2 or 4 ?

Joey Hess wrote:
> Andrea Mennucc wrote:
>>now that sarge is frozen, I would like to start a discussion
>>on the number to associate to Sarge release.
> Now that sarge is frozen we have /etc/debian_version, the installation
> manual, the release notes, and the website all containing the version
> number 3.1. I've probably forgotten a few other things.

I dont see it as a big stopper. You are saying that the number "3.1"
appears /etc/debian_version (that lives in package "base-files")
and in 3 documents (and translations).
How much work does it take to change the above?
(If I add access to the above, I would offer my time to do it myself).

> Updating all
> these things to change a version number kinda misses the point of a
> freeze, doesn't it?

yes and no

I would bet 10$ that during the freeze more than 300 packages will be
 admitted into Sarge.
And I would bet another 5$ that "base-files" will be one of them.
And I would bet another 5$ that both the release notes and the
installation manual will need to be edited at least once before we release.

For me, the point of the freeze is to release a new Debian,
and be proud of it.
Part of my pride would be highlighted by seeing it named "4.0".
Call me sentimental.
"3.1" seems just a minor upgrade, something that comes out to
fix a few bugs and add a few minor features, not what
summarized 3 years of work and commitment.

> see shy jo, who argued for 4.0 at the appropriate time to discuss the
>            version number to use

That is puzzling me. In 2003, in the thread starting at
most people were agreeing with calling sarge "4.0".
I inderstand from your signature that you were for "4.0" as well
(altough I do not find your support in above thread).

So why nobody did actually change the number then?


Reply to: