[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian release versioning

On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 01:51:55AM +0200, Franklin PIAT wrote:
> 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
> switch back.

On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 07:46:54AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> Paul Wise wrote:
> > I think that the versioning scheme needs to take into account the
> > possible implementation of Joey Hess' CUT (Constantly Usable Testing)
> > idea. I'd suggest 6.X would be CUT releases of lenny+1 and 6.0rY would
> > be stable updates.
> Surely those would be 7.0~<some_ID> ;-)

Combining the above two comments, I think lenny's release number should
be reassigned to 1:2.6.


Reply to: