Re: Drop the minor release number
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 11:24:38AM -0400, sean finney wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 05:05:09PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > 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.
> >
Please review the list archives to find out _why_ we have the current
system. Bruce Perens' original problem was that, when CD's were
expensive and relatively rare, CD vendors needed to produce "Version 2"
releases and not to be wrong-footed by a sudden release which would
leave them with useless CD's. Since our point releases are small, then
it means that vendors need only burn either an update CD or change disk
1.
I can't remember how many point releases 2.1 had: 2.2 had ?? 7 ??, 3.0
had point releases up to the ten days before the release of 3.1.
I think the scheme as we have it is not too bad: random version number
changes just for the sake of it are for the others :)
Debian's scheme is at least more readily visible than the RH updates
for Enterprise Linux for example.
Full change to X.org, Emacs 22, distribution compiled with GCC 4.1 and
multiarch - that would justify a version number bump to 4 - anything
less is just 3.2 :) [Tex has already done the 3.141 ...scheme, but I
still like it. 3.1415927 ?? .... :) ] The other option is Debian I00 [4],
Debian 110, 111 :)
Just my 0.010 :)
Andy
> > Does the release team agree with this change or do we need another
> > consensus (or even a GR)?
>
> this looks pretty reasonable to me, and makes the number versioning
> actually convey consistant information. i also liked the previous
> suggestion of using integral versions counting the "generation" of
> the debian release back to the first release.
>
> but then again, ianarm.
>
> sean
>
>
> --
Reply to: