So lenny will be Debian 5.0. Many people have questioned this choice, given how we onconsistently went ...-2.0-2.1-2.2-3.0-3.1-4.0 in the last decade, but it's the RM's choice and not to be debated. What is to be debated is how to move on from here. I propose that we get rid of our r-releases and simply let the first stable update to lenny be 5.1, followed by 5.2, and so on. lenny+0.5 would logically be 5.5, since it's unlikely that we will have five stable updates out within 1.5/2=0.75 years, and if we do, then lenny+0.5 is late. lenny+1 would be released as 6.0. This would add sense to our versioning scheme (and help avoid those discussions in the future). Instead of long flamewars and floods of AOL posts, I suggest you update http://doodle.ch/8zauai3nqges2ur8 if you're in favour or you oppose. You can use http://doodle.ch/syndication/8zauai3nqges2ur8 to track submissions. If you do have something to say, then reply. -- .''`. martin f. krafft <madduck@debian.org> : :' : proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck - http://debiansystem.info `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems beauty, brains, availability, personality; pick any two.
Attachment:
digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)