Re: Release naming ...
On Aug 23, Anand Kumria wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> On Fri, 22 Aug 1997, Richard G. Roberto wrote:
>
> > A while ago I posted my feelings on this to Debian private,
> > but it was _very_ ill received at the time. I'll restate it
> > now. Commercial products do not rename their OS every time
> > there's a bug fix! I suggested adopting a more commercial
> > approach to release naming for the reasons it is now being
> > done. I suggested only incrementing the revision number
> > (i.e. issuing a point release) when one of three criteria
> > were met:
>
> The name of a product, and its version number are two distinct things.
> Windows95 is the name of a product; is has (at least) two versions one is
> 4.000a the other is OSR2 4.000b -- not I'm not familiar with Windows95 and
> I might have got this wrong; I'm just trying to use an example to
> illustrate here.
In fact, Bill Gates states that "there are no significant bugs in our
released software" And he will never release a new version because of fixed
bugs (because it would not sell). It's crazy, but it is what he said (in
German magazine FOCUS Nr.43 +/- 1)
[snip]
> > Its obvious that perspective buyers feel the same way, and
> > experienced marketers(sp?) know this. This is why they have made
> > these suggestions to us. What Bruce has done is a
> > compromise to this. The name will still identify a
> > "snapshot" of the stable release relative to a series of
> > "fixes" against a major release, it will just do it in a
> > less confusing manner.
>
> It is obvious? In that case would you expect such a long thread about it?
> Too me, 1.3.1 identifies a snapshot of the system, as does 1.3.2 - the
> learning curve is slight and once learnt is used so routinely throughout
> the software industry that I wouldn't expect the learning to be a
> significant hardship.
Too me, 1.3 rev 1 identifies a snapshot, too. For 1.3.1 rev 1, see below.
For the long thread, let me say: Every time there are things misunderstood,
and people who want to rant a bit about things they don't like, don't
understand, or can't change.
[unappropriate discussion about leadership snipped]
> This integrity agrument does not seem at all clear. Bruce has posted (so
> far) only twice with details of what is happenning; every other post has
> been in response to some other person. There was also a post from Manoj
> which is similiar to what Bruce has suggested.
>
> So far I have seen two schemes for 1.3:
>
> Scheme 1:
> 1.3.1 will be renamed 1.3.1 Revision 0 and each change will
> increment the right-hand most digit. Thus the next one will be 1.3.1
> Revision 1, then 1.3.1 Revision 2.
>
> Scheme 2:
> 1.3.1 will be renamed 1.3 Revision 1, and each chnage will
> increment the right-hand most digit. Thus the next one will be 1.3
> Revision 2, then 1.3 Revision 3
>
> In the case of scheme 2; why bother? In the case of Scheme 1 why do you
> need an additional change number? /etc/debian_version is 1.3 - what is
> wrong with using the '.1' for the revision number?
OK, here once again (and I only repeat what others, like Bruce and Manoj had
said):
Scheme 1: This is only, because the new version naming scheme was introduced
*after* releasing 1.3. Because Debian supports *fixed* versions (so you can
identify a version number with the content), it is inappropriate to change
the names afterwards.
Scheme 2: Will be used for the next release codename hamm. So we have 2.0,
2.0 rev 1 and so on.
This is done to indicate the relativly minor changes done in each revision,
and to indicate that 1.3.1 and 1.3.1 rev 1 have only small differences.
The same for 2.0 and 2.0 rev 1.
> It has been suggested that this is becasue some CD manufacturers don't
> want to try and sell as fast a moving target as Debian. They want slower
> numbers. What happens when another manufacturer wants the same? The issue
> here is that CD manufacturers have failed to understand, in my opinion,
> Debian _current_ version numbering.
This doesn't matter. The naming scheme was choosen, and here it is. It
applies to all things involved in debian, not only CD's.
> You should be informing CD manufacturers that the current version of
> Debian is 1.3 - that if they label it any other way, it is not an official
> Debian CD. You also suggest that they include some text along the lines of
> "As with most software in the computer industry, changes wil
> occur. Once you have completed installation of your Debian GNU/Linux
> computer system, we recommended that you use the version control tools
> provided to apply any updates that might have appeared."
This would indeed be a neat statement - combined with a remark and pointer
to www.debian.org or ftp.debian.org.
Bye,
Marcus
--
"Rhubarb is no Egyptian god."
Marcus Brinkmann
Marcus.Brinkmann@rz.ruhr-uni-bochum.de
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/
--
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: