Re: should etch be Debian 4.0 ?
Drew Parsons <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> I'm already seeing documentation referring to "Debian 3.2 (etch)". Is
> this really what we want?
> I remember some of us belatedly suggested sarge should be Debian 4.0,
> though it was too late (May?) to accept that.
> I suppose we should decide now if etch is going to be 3.2 or 4.0.
> Given the ABI change with gcc-4.0 and the introduction of X.org, it
> seems to me we have ample justification to introduce Debian 4.0.
I've never understood the .X distinction anyway.
What signal is meant by 3.1 versus 4.0? Does your intended audience
have any concept of the distinction?
Why is sarge 3.1 and not 4.0? No good reason that makes any sense to
me. It's a distinction completely without value since its too subtle
for non-intimates to grasp and if you are very into debian, you'd know
what the difference between versions is anyway.
Just call them release N.0. Update rollups (like 3.0r5, 3.0r6 and
presumably future 3.1r1 &c) could use the second digit.