#include <hallo.h>
* Thomas Hood [Fri, Jul 08 2005, 04:16:01PM]:
> If Debian continues to use the Release When Ready strategy then I would
> suggest that the number of the next release be its ordinal in the
> historical sequence of releases, which is 9 by my reckoning (buzz, rex,
> bo, hamm, slink, potato, woody, sarge, etch). I see no basis for
> distinguishing some Debian releases as "minor" ones. Every release is
> major.
>
> If Debian simply _must_ have decimal points in its release numbers then
> I'd suggest replacing the 'r' in update version numbers with '.'. Thus
> 9.1 would be the number of the first etch update.
Exactly my point. There is really no reason for having a "minor release
number after dot" in the Debian version, it justs leads people to
pointless discussions like this one.
Even labelling the versions with integer numbers and having a release
every 18 months, we would have about 10 years to get to a state of
"number space polution" that has been reached by commercial distros even
now (9.x versions). IMO enough time to do a lot of things.
Therefore I suggest dropping the "minor number" and giving numbers as
suggested above. In addition, there may be single latin chars to declare
minimalistic changes (like a fix in CD images, not really affecting the
released version).
Then we would have
Debian 4.0 for etch, 4.1 for etch stable release 1, 4.2 for etch stable
release 2, 4.2a for etch stable release 2 with a minor CD mastering fix
(for example), etc.pp.
Does the release team agree with this change or do we need another
consensus (or even a GR)?
Regards,
Eduard.
--
Susan Ivanova: An expedition to Coronis space found Sheridan's ship a few days
later, but they never found him. All the airlocks were sealed, but there was no
trace of him inside. Some of the Minbari believe he will come back some day,
but I never say him again in my lifetime...
-- Quotes from Babylon 5 --
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature