Re: Was the release of Debian 2.0 put on Linux Announce?
On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, Peter Gervai wrote:
> So, there are many factors. You like high version numbers, you like
> "comparable version numbers" (I think of StarOffice and micro$oft word
> here for example), you like a next major version everytime there is
> more than 10 files changed in the distribution.
I don't particularly like a high version number, I just like a consistant
policy of how the version numbers are changed. Right now a new stable
release can be a major or minor revision depending on the "feelings" and
after considerable debate in debian-devel. That is pretty much moot since
I realized the LSB thing. My attention will now turn to how the LSB
evolves. If Red Hat attempts to shove RPM down the world's throat, I will
> Major versions for ONLY major changes, minors for minor, and
> not entering the version-number-hype-marketing-bandwagon is
> the hackers' view of version numbers.
What constitutes a major change is fuzzy. I think it should be set in
policy. 2.0 was a no-brainer since the libc change means all of the
application packages would not run, by default, on the older revision but
will Linux-2.2 or 3.0 or whatever it will be cause a 3.0 release or will
it be a 2.??
Microsoft! Which end of the stick do you want today?
Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe email@example.com < /dev/null