Re: should etch be Debian 4.0 ?
On Monday 11 July 2005 00:23, Johan Kullstam wrote:
> Mark Fletcher <mark27q1@yahoo.com> writes:
> > On Sunday 10 July 2005 21:55, Joris Huizer wrote:
> > > Johan Kullstam wrote:
> > > > Let me see if I understand you correctly. Your
> > > > reason for having the ambiguity of wether to
> > > > call it 3.2 or 4.0 is just to keep people from
> > > > assigning etch a number?
> > >
> > > I think this is quite logical, as there is some
> > > structure in those numbers - 4.0 means a big
> > > leap, 3.2 means "smaller " change; nobody can
> > > tell right now how big the step is from sarge to
> > > etch, as it's development has just started
> > > ofcourse, it's just up to the debian development
> > > team to decide wether the changes are big enough
> > > to call it 4.0 (anyone know why sarge became
> > > 3.1?)
> > >
> > > just some thoughts
> > >
> > > Joris
> >
> > I'd add that it's not deliberate ambiguity as a
> > means to any particular end, so much as it not
> > being an appropriate stage of the development of
> > etch for the decision to be made if a major or
> > minor version upgrade is appropriate. This does
> > matter; this list wouldn't take long to hear from a
> > whole tribe of people with nothing better to do
> > than complain about unimportant things if they
> > decided it was to be 3.2 now and then it turned out
> > that the changes were massive and the upgrade path
> > difficult... likewise if they decided 4.0 now and
> > then it turned out the changes were small and
> > relatively minor .
>
> Are people really going to look at the version number
> and say, "I've got sarge now and since new number is
> 3.2 i'll upgrade but if it were 4.0 i'd sit still?"
> Have people done this in the past?
>
> Releases come every 3-4 years so why not let the
> release notes explain the changes. A version number
> might make sense for automated things where cron
> downloads and installs a minor increment but not
> major one. This is so seldom that manual
> intervention isn't too much to ask for.
>
> Since the difference is subtle, why have the
> distinction? Why not use next release is 4.0 and the
> one after that 5.0 and so on *no matter how small the
> update*?
>
> --
> Johan KULLSTAM
Yup, that's another way to do it.
Mark
Reply to: