Re: should etch be Debian 4.0 ?
Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es> writes:
> On Sat, 9 Jul 2005, Nigel Jones wrote:
>
> > On 08/07/05, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 11:57:25AM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote:
> > > > I'm already seeing documentation referring to "Debian 3.2 (etch)".
> > >
> > > Where is this? It's certainly wrong for documentation to make assumptions
> > > about the release version number at this point, and is the kind of thing
> > > that makes it harder to change later.
> > >
> > > And after all, isn't the point of codenames to avoid third-parties
> > > incorrectly attaching a version number to a not-yet-released version?
> >
> > http://ru.wikibooks.org/wiki/LOR-FAQ-Debian seems to be saying Etch is 3.2
> > Also http://www.computerbase.de/lexikon/Debian seems to be saying the same.
> > (Got these from a google search of "etch 3.2 debian" (page 8 onwards)).
>
> Those references should be changed, then. It's *not* ok to refer to etch
> as Debian 3.2, as the version number for etch has not been decided
> yet.
Why the mystery?
What message is being transmitted by calling it 3.2 versus 4.0?
If there is no message, why the distinction?
So what we have now is current version of debian is N.K with next
version of debian being N.{K+1} or {N+1}.K according to some
inscrutible random variable dependent upon the phase of the moon and
other chaotic factors.
The only effect as far as I can see is to cause confusion about the
version number of the next release.
I suspect some sort of Schödinger's cat experiment where the next
version number is in some sort of half-incremented
half-not-incremented superposition state.
Does this state of affairs actually help anyone? ANYONE?
--
Johan KULLSTAM
Reply to: