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.
Moreover.
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
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/01/msg00337.html
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?
a.
Reply to: