Re: should etch be Debian 4.0 ?
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 11:57:25AM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote:
> I'm already seeing documentation referring to "Debian 3.2 (etch)".
Where is this? It's certainly wrong for documentation to make assumptions
about the release version number at this point, and is the kind of thing
that makes it harder to change later.
And after all, isn't the point of codenames to avoid third-parties
incorrectly attaching a version number to a not-yet-released version?
> Is this really what we want?
Not particularly. Frankly, I think we should do away with the minor version
numbering altogether for Debian releases, reserving that for our point
releases; I think the endless discussions about what is or isn't an
important enough change within the code to warrant bumping the major version
are really quite beside the point.
Personally, I think sarge ought to have been labelled a 4.0 release, but
IIRC the version number decision was made before my time. :)