[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: APT 1.0?



On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Christian PERRIER <bubulle@debian.org> wrote:
> We're reaching a quite "interesting" version number, with 0.9.9.3.

I recently stumbled across a similar thread and my first thought was:
"Oh boy, these guys will be so disappointed then Michael uploads 0.10"
The version number I was "excited" about was "0.8.15" [0]. ;)
I didn't even notice the possibility of a "1.0" without a hint…

The version numbering scheme used here is a bit odd/inconsistent,
but at least third-digits well above 10 are common:
0.8.15
0.7.25
0.6.46.4
0.5.32
(skipped 0.4 series)
0.3.19
(skipped 0.2 series)
0.1.9
0.0.17

So I wouldn't be too surprised if we will have "0.9" for a while …
And who knows what will happen to the second-degree-digit …
(dpkg does the same, just that it started with 1.0.0 more or less)

[0] for the few non-germans on deity@: Last sentence of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_08#MG08.2F15


> Isn't it time, after 15 years, to declare that we have the 1.0
> version of APT? :-)

I once said that this is nothing for me to decide, as I am far too new.
Michael on the other hand had (if commit history is right) his 10-year
anniversary in April, so this makes him the perfect candidate …

On the other hand, nothing is really going to change just by tagging it "1.0".

I kinda like the beta-software joke and I really don't consider APT in any
way feature complete. Somehow I guess we are well past the point were it
is natural to declare something "1.0" without generating a lot of fuzz.
It would be like declaring the start of a new epoch, I wouldn't want to waste
this on a "we fixed 2 obscure minor bugs nobody cares about"-release, that
must be a big one, with party, fireworks and lots of cows. ;)
(so CheeseWineBoF doesn't work – no firework planed)

Aren't version numbers obsolete nowadays anyway?

Maybe Michael will use a different version scheme to tease us:
"apt 0.9.9.9.9.9.9.9.9.9.9.9.9.9.9.9.9 migrated to testing" … ;D


Best regards

David Kalnischkies


Reply to: