Re: Debian Version Numbers Was: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)
I concur. The next release of the stable tree should be called 1.3
Revision 2, not 1.3.1 Revision 1.
What problem has this solved for CD retailers? Will they still be bummed
when 1.3 Revision X+1 is released and they just got 1.3 Revision X on the
shelves? Did it make any difference that it was called 1.3 Revision X
instead of 1.3.X? I think not. The whole idea of appeasing marketing
types seems ill-advised. They just need to learn when to pick a release
to burn for retail distribution. If I were doing it, I'd never pick an
If Debian were still using the business practice of the 1.2 release:
just release the fixes whenever they're deemed suitable (and re-release
them if necessary) the marketing types wouldn't have this problem.
Instead, by bundling and holding the patches for further testing and
releasing them as unit, we now have a meaningful minor revision number
and a major headache! I still like the new practice better, I just don't
think the name change is going to allow the marketeers to fool themselves
for very long :-).
On Wed, 20 Aug 1997, Anand Kumria wrote:
> > 1.3.1 != 1.3.1 Revision 1.
> > The latter is the first revision of the former.
> That is not what I what I was saynig.
> bash$ cat /etc/debian_version
> So I am running Debian version 1.3 - and yet the CD says Debian 1.3.1 . My
> conclusion is that I am running Debian 1.3 Revision (PatchLevel) 1 - which
> would explain why the CD says Debian 1.3.1
> I understand the commercial reason behind wanting a slower number: but
> Debian already has that -- the current version of Debian is 1.3 . I don't
> understand why you want to have two revision numbers.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .