Re: Show me the money Re: Donations to Debian
Hi,
just my two cents...
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com> wrote:
: For those who care, the old scheme was to have revisions
: called 2.0.1 etc, the new scheme calles them revisions.
: old new
: === ===
: 2.0.0 2.0
: 2.0.1 2.0 r1
: 2.0.2 2.0 r2
:
: There are no fewer release. All releases are numbered (with
: revisions, not point versions). Technically, the two schemes are the
: same. Mr Cinege has escalated a percived, non-technical difference
: into a jihad.
And if we think about Bruce's words:
>So, we want to make it clear that our CD, even if it is a revision or two
>behind, is still _current_ product in that you can easily hit our FTP site
>and update it to the latest and greatest. We are separating the release
>number from the revision number to emphasize this fact.
this makes sense. I don't see anything wrong with this versioning scheme,
it's the same as before.
However, I feel a litle bit unconfortable with the way things are arranged
currently in FTP site: before, in the old 1.1 and 1.2 days it was very
easy to find what was changed, I just had to go to buzz-updates or
rex-updates and find there all the updated packages. Now, the bo-updates
directory has packages that are being tested but are not part of the
main distribution yet. When something is released it goes to bo (stable).
I don't know, it just that I don't feel confortable with that...
E.-
--
Eloy A. Paris
Information Technology Department
Rockwell Automation de Venezuela
Telephone: +58-2-9432311 Fax: +58-2-9430323
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-user-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: