Re: Debian release versioning
On Sat, 2008-07-12 at 22:45 +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * martin f krafft [Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:09:09 +0200]:
> > 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.
Also, madduck posted that comment on doodle (Saturday, July 12, 2008) :
> > whether lenny+1/2 should be named 5.5 or 5.3, if 5.2 was the last
> > stable update, is not part of this vote. This vote is just stable
> > releases are distinguished with X and every stable update gets a
> > new Y.
First of all, I don't think we can work on the different numbering
I can think of five types of releases :
1. Quite incompatible release, like libc5 to libc6 transition.
2a. Scheduled release. Which purpose is to update software, fix
medium bugs, improve hardware support, etc.
(i.e Debian Stable !)
2b. Some kind of updates where only End-user software-update
would be updated, but not the core libraries.
In the proprietary software industry, it can be considered as
installing a new version of a user application.
Debian don't have such release (actually we could consider
backport to be this kind of thing).
3. Hardware support improvements (e.g Etch-n-a-half)
4. Stability and security improvements (e.g point releases)
In my perfect world, the major number would be for #1 only. But since
this rule wasn't followed since woody 3.0 so it's too late and we can't
The idea to bump the integer part for each release looks like a good
idea (which would be consistent with our recent releases numbering,
> I really, really dislike this part. Decimals have always meant a
> completely different release, and I'd rather not change their meaning
> now. (Plus in free software parlance, the second integer normally means
> new features, not just bugfixes.)
I also completely disagree with the idea of using 6.1 for lenny+1's
first point release. Everyone on this planet expect to get new features
and new bugs in a decimal release (read ).
Using 6.1 for our point release would cause user deception. Please don't
If one don't like the "r" numbering (because one think users could be
confused with "alpha", "beta", "rc"...) then we could switch back to
numbers like 1.3.1 (but again read ).
> We could do the "bump integer for each release" that you suggest, always
> releasing at .0. And consistently give the "and a half" releases the .1.
> For example: Lenny 5.0, then 5.0r1 and 5.0r2, then "Lenny and a half" 5.1,
> followed by 5.1r1, etc. if needed.
At first I also considered 6.5 for Lenny-and-a-half, but since we might
have a "Lenny-and-two-third" or Lenny+Backport so I don't consider it a
good idea. I like Adeodato's 6.1 (alternatively we could use 6.0.10)