On Tue, 19 Aug 1997, Dave Cinege wrote: > On Tue, 19 Aug 97 12:35 PDT, Bruce Perens wrote: > > > >> So I am running Debian version 1.3 - and yet the CD says Debian 1.3.1 . > > > >Oops. My fault. The reason for two numbers is mostly marketing. I know > >that marketing is anathema to most of us, but someone's gotta do it and > >I'm afraid the task fell on me. Feel free to call me up if you need a > >longer explanation. > > Phooey! I like the naming scheme, and the system for updates. When I am using > something > Debian I want to know if it is 1.3.0 or 1.3.1, not 1.3 > Rev-Guesswhatchangeswe'vemadewiththisrun. > (debian_version should also reflect this)
(The following are how I see this is. If I am incorrect, please correct me. :) New revisions are still distinguished. There is nothing hidden in anyway. For example, if there are some security fixes needed for a new release, it will be called Debian 1.3.1 Revision 1, Debian 1.3.1 Revision 2, and so forth. This is to indicate that the changes are small. (Usually just minor bug fixes, perhaps just a few megabytes which only takes a few minutes to half an hour for people to download from an FTP site.) The next major release will be Debian 2.0. If *small* revisions are necessary, they'll be called Debian 2.0 Revision 1, Debian 2.0 Revision 2, and so forth. When there are major changes for a major released, it will be called Debian 2.1 or something like that. I like this idea. It is a very good compromise, and indeed, nothing is hidden. You may think of Debian 1.3.1 Revision 1 as 1.3.1.1; Debian 2.0 Revision 1 as Debian 2.0.1. It is up to you. ^_^ -- Anthony Fok Tung-Ling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Civil Engineering http://www.ualberta.ca/~foka/ University of Alberta, Canada Keep smiling! *^_^* -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
