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? > Is this really what we want? Not particularly. Frankly, I think we should do away with the minor version numbering altogether for Debian releases, reserving that for our point releases; I think the endless discussions about what is or isn't an important enough change within the code to warrant bumping the major version are really quite beside the point. Personally, I think sarge ought to have been labelled a 4.0 release, but IIRC the version number decision was made before my time. :) -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
