Re: should etch be Debian 4.0 ?
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005, Nigel Jones wrote:
> On 08/07/05, Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > 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?
> http://ru.wikibooks.org/wiki/LOR-FAQ-Debian seems to be saying Etch is 3.2
> Also http://www.computerbase.de/lexikon/Debian seems to be saying the same.
> (Got these from a google search of "etch 3.2 debian" (page 8 onwards)).
Those references should be changed, then. It's *not* ok to refer to etch
as Debian 3.2, as the version number for etch has not been decided yet.