On Monday 11 July 2005 00:23, Johan Kullstam wrote: > Mark Fletcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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*? > > -- > Johan KULLSTAM
Yup, that's another way to do it. Mark -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
