Re: Dropping the .0 on release numbers?
On 09/14/2010 07:58 PM, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 12:25:25 -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
>> We have carried a major.minor scheme as a release numbering scheme
>> since the Early Days, but it has lost relevance basically since Sarge
>> (3.1 - But by the time it was finally released, some discussion was
>> made whether Sarge should be 4.0 as the difference from Woody was
>> already too large, to which the release team IIRC answered "it would
>> be right but it's too late"). Since Etch released (2007), we have
>> always used x.0.
> The .0 actually has quite a bit relevance since it signifies a new
> major long-term release. It also demonstrates stability when used in
> conjunction with the third digit. 6.0.1 seems like a rather minor
> update, which accurately describes stable point updates. Whereas, 6.1
> seems like a much more experimental update.
I'd add another zero then, to increase stability: 220.127.116.11
Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدڤي