Mark Fletcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Saturday 09 July 2005 23:56, Johan Kullstam wrote: > > Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Sat, 9 Jul 2005, Nigel Jones wrote: > > > > On 08/07/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > > http://ru.wikibooks.org/wiki/LOR-FAQ-Debian seems > > > > to be saying Etch is 3.2 Also > > > > http://www.computerbase.de/lexikon/Debian seems > > > > to be saying the same. (Got these from a google > > > > search of "etch 3.2 debian" (page 8 onwards)). > > > > > > Those references should be changed, then. It's > > > *not* ok to refer to etch as Debian 3.2, as the > > > version number for etch has not been decided yet. > > > > Why the mystery? > > > > What message is being transmitted by calling it 3.2 > > versus 4.0? > > > > If there is no message, why the distinction? > > > > So what we have now is current version of debian is > > N.K with next version of debian being N.{K+1} or > > {N+1}.K according to some inscrutible random variable > > dependent upon the phase of the moon and other > > chaotic factors. > > > > The only effect as far as I can see is to cause > > confusion about the version number of the next > > release. > > > > I suspect some sort of Schödinger's cat experiment > > where the next version number is in some sort of > > half-incremented half-not-incremented superposition > > state. > > > > Does this state of affairs actually help anyone? > > ANYONE? > > Erm, OK. Coming back to earth for a second, I think the > reason why some people object to a version number being > attached to etch is because of the stage of its life > that it's at, it could be argued not to be an official > release yet. (Pardon me, has it even made it to > "testing" yet?). > > Refraining from giving early-stage upcoming versions of > software an official version number until it gets to a > certain stage of maturity is pretty common practice in > largescale software development. And it doesn't get a > lot more large scale than a worldwide open source > project.
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? -- Johan KULLSTAM
