Re: debian sarge is 3.2 or 4 ?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Andrea Mennucc <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 May 2005, Marc Haber wrote:
>>>Their fault for releasing a book about unreleased software which is
>>>bound to be outdated the day that sarge will actually release.
>> Uh-uh and when will that day be? And don't give me any of that "when it
>> is ready" nonsense. The release version number was ready a long time ago.
>> The problem isn't a concern for quality, it is people like you and Andrea
>> who don't follow process,
> me, I do my part of the work in Debian and nobody ever contacted me
> regarding the choice of the number
No-one contacted me, either. But that's OK, since it wasn't my
choice. I really couldn't care less what the number was, in any case.
FWIW, I've noticed that "3.1" is already used in quite a lot of
documentation and on websites with articles relating to Debian. It
was announced quite some time ago, and so it would be rather
inconsiderate [gross understatement] to change it at this late stage.
Have you considered the huge impact of changing the version number?
It's to no-one's advantage to do this.
Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/
Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/
GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----