Re: Where is Debian going?
On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 09:58:02PM -0400, Thatcher Ulrich wrote:
> On Jul 10, 2002 at 06:49 -0500, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 05:51:20PM -0400, Thatcher Ulrich wrote:
> > | MHO newbie opinion: emphasize version numbers (2.x, 3.x, 4.x) and
> >
> > That sounds fine for a "you can only get 'stable'" release method
> > (like every commercial software house runs it), however what version
> > is sid/unstable? What about testing?
>
> This is what I mean:
>
> potato == 2.x
> woody == 3.x
> sid == 4.x
>
> and deprecate the names. As of now,
Once upon a time even unreleased versions of Debian were referred to
using version numbers. Then a certain CD vendor "anticipated" the
release of 1.0, and pressed and sold a broken unstable version as
"Debian 1.0". The first official release of Debian ended up having to be
1.1 as a result.
Ever since then, we have used codenames for unreleased versions as a
means of discouraging people from applying the version number too soon.
Inevitably, people get used to the codenames during development and
continue to use them even after a version number is assigned for a
proper release.
Also, the relationship between testing and unstable is nothing like 3.x
and 4.x. testing in March, for instance, generally had more recent
versions of packages than unstable did in January.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: