On Sun,13.Jul.08, 11:45:46, Russ Allbery wrote: > Lars Wirzenius <liw@liw.fi> writes: > > > If I remember correctly, we adopted the rX way of versioning to appease > > CD-ROM vendors: they did not like us releasing X.Y+1 as a stable update > > since that meant their X.Y boxes looked out of date, even though the > > boxes were perfectly fine, and could easily be updated to X.Y+1 via the > > net. > > > > Do we still care about that? > > To me, this argues for continuing to use 5.0r1, 5.0r2, and so forth for > stable updates and using 5.1 for the -and-a-half release, with 5.1r1, > 5.1r2, and so forth for additional stable releases based on it. That > means we'd probably never use 5.2, but it follows the versioning that > makes sense for CD-ROM vendors. The -and-a-half release *does* make their > CDs potentially out of date since the -and-a-half release may be able to > install on hardware that the original release can't. That would be true if there was an updated etch installer, which is not the case (one has to use the lenny beta 2 installer to install etch-and-a-half directly) now. Maybe lenny-and-a-half will also have an updated installer? Regards, Andrei -- If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. (Albert Einstein)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature