Re: Dropping the .0 on release numbers?
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.
Also, as I mentioned elsewhere, testing could start to get beta-like
versions numbers, which would be useful for branding snapshots (e.g.