Re: should etch be Debian 4.0 ?
Hendrik Boom <hendrik@pooq.com> writes:
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 11:23:10AM -0400, 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*?
>
> Well, no matter whether the etch release next year or later is going to
> be a big or a little upgrade, etch isn't stable yet, and so if
> it's going to be 4.0 or 3.2 or 3.1415 or whatever, the numbers
> (if any) for what we have now are going to have to be less than that.
> So for the time being, 4.0 is probably inappropriate as a version
> number.
I don't see why 4 is inappropriate. 4 has been the successor to 3
for a few thousand years. I don't think that will change in the next
decade.
> 3.2 might be OK. 3.1.9 is probably too close to numbers for sarge
> with security upgrades.
But still, I ask, why the minor and major numbers? Does this help
anyone in the least?
Others ask why a number at all. That's a good question.
> But does it even need a version number right now?
Or will it need a version number ever? Seriously, what is the point?
Etch.0 etch.1 &c might be ok. Call it etch.0 while in testing. Then
etch.1 at release. Roll-up upgrades are etch.2 etch.3 &c.
> If it were a package,
> aptitude and its friends would have to know it. But it isn't.
> Or is that one of the big changes we're going to see? That the entire
> distribution becomes a package?
>
> -- hendrik
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
--
Johan KULLSTAM
Reply to: