On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 07:46:54AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> Agreed.
>
> Also, I really dislike the "use .5 for -and-a-half releases" in the
> original proposal. For one thing you cannot exclude the risk that 5 point
> releases would be needed for one reason or another before an +1/2
> release.
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 11:21:30PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I'm not sure sure that we want to have a hole in our versioning scheme.
> Since "lenny+1/2" is just another stable update, let's just number it
> like a stable update. So we don't end up with users thinking "You
> released 5.0, 5.1,
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 06:09:09PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> So lenny will be Debian 5.0. Many people have questioned this
> choice, given how we onconsistently went ...-2.0-2.1-2.2-3.0-3.1-4.0
> in the last decade, but it's the RM's choice and not to be debated.
Looks consistent to me.
1.0
also sprach John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.07.14.1701 +0200]:
> The other option is to have 5.0, 5.0.1, 5.0.2, 5.0.3, 5.1.0, where 5.1.0
> is lenny+1/2.
I note that replacing the second . with an r makes this converge
with the previous proposal to increment y only for stable updates
that a
* John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080714 17:38]:
> The other option is to have 5.0, 5.0.1, 5.0.2, 5.0.3, 5.1.0, where 5.1.0
> is lenny+1/2.
>
> That probably most accurately reflects what is really happening.
It also has the big advantage of using an already existing versioning
scheme, so less
martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.07.12.2321 +0200]:
>> I'm not sure sure that we want to have a hole in our versioning scheme.
>> Since "lenny+1/2" is just another stable update, let's just number it
>> like a stable update. So we don't end up with users
I was in favour at first sight, but not anymore. I agree with Adeodato
that in general, the second integer of a software version is more
meaningful that a stable update means. Also, as he wrote, it used to
mean something entirely different in Debian itself, less than 4 years ago.
But at least
On Sun,13.Jul.08, 11:45:46, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If I remember correctly, we adopted the rX way of versioning to appease
> > CD-ROM vendors: they did not like us releasing X.Y+1 as a stable update
> > since that meant their X.Y boxes looked out of
Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If I remember correctly, we adopted the rX way of versioning to appease
> CD-ROM vendors: they did not like us releasing X.Y+1 as a stable update
> since that meant their X.Y boxes looked out of date, even though the
> boxes were perfectly fine, and cou
Am Sonntag 13 Juli 2008 schrieb Frans Pop:
> Also, I really dislike the "use .5 for -and-a-half releases" in the
> original proposal. For one thing you cannot exclude the risk that 5
> point releases would be needed for one reason or another before an
> +1/2 release. And it also makes it impossible
Magnus Holmgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On lördagen den 12 juli 2008, martin f krafft wrote:
> > lenny+0.5 would logically be 5.5
>
> Version strings are *not* floating-point numbers (i.e. e.g. 5.10
> follows 5.9).
Exactly. More specifically, a numbers-with-periods version string
represent
On lördagen den 12 juli 2008, martin f krafft wrote:
> lenny+0.5 would logically be 5.5
Version strings are *not* floating-point numbers (i.e. e.g. 5.10 follows 5.9).
At least that's the school of thought Debian (dpkg --compare-versions)
subscribes to with regard to packages.
--
Magnus Holmgre
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 01:51:55AM +0200, Franklin PIAT wrote:
> I can think of five types of releases :
>
> 1. Quite incompatible release, like libc5 to libc6 transition.
> 2a. Scheduled release. Which purpose is to update software, fix
> medium bugs, improve hardware support, etc.
> ???
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 07:46:54AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> Paul Wise wrote:
> > I think that the versioning scheme needs to take into account the
> > possible implementation of Joey Hess' CUT (Constantly Usable Testing)
> > idea. I'd suggest 6.X would be CUT releases of lenny+1 and 6.0rY would
>
la, 2008-07-12 kello 18:09 +0200, martin f krafft kirjoitti:
> So lenny will be Debian 5.0. Many people have questioned this
> choice, given how we onconsistently went ...-2.0-2.1-2.2-3.0-3.1-4.0
> in the last decade, but it's the RM's choice and not to be debated.
>
> What is to be debated is how
Paul Wise wrote:
> I think that the versioning scheme needs to take into account the
> possible implementation of Joey Hess' CUT (Constantly Usable Testing)
> idea. I'd suggest 6.X would be CUT releases of lenny+1 and 6.0rY would
> be stable updates.
Surely those would be 7.0~ ;-)
> Anyway, lets
I think that the versioning scheme needs to take into account the
possible implementation of Joey Hess' CUT (Constantly Usable Testing)
idea. I'd suggest 6.X would be CUT releases of lenny+1 and 6.0rY would
be stable updates.
Anyway, lets leave it up to the RMs to paint names and numbers on the bi
Franklin PIAT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The idea to bump the integer part for each release looks like a good
> idea (which would be consistent with our recent releases numbering,
> except sarge).
Note that *all* the numeric parts of the version number are integers.
That they are separated by
martin f krafft dijo [Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 06:09:09PM +0200]:
> So lenny will be Debian 5.0. Many people have questioned this
> choice, given how we onconsistently went ...-2.0-2.1-2.2-3.0-3.1-4.0
> in the last decade, but it's the RM's choice and not to be debated.
> (...)
> Instead of long flamew
This one time, at band camp, Gunnar Wolf said:
> Lucas Nussbaum dijo [Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 11:21:30PM +0200]:
> > > lenny+0.5 would logically be 5.5, since it's unlikely that we will
> > > have five stable updates out within 1.5/2=0.75 years, and if we do,
> > > then lenny+0.5 is late.
> >
> > I'm
Lucas Nussbaum dijo [Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 11:21:30PM +0200]:
> > lenny+0.5 would logically be 5.5, since it's unlikely that we will
> > have five stable updates out within 1.5/2=0.75 years, and if we do,
> > then lenny+0.5 is late.
>
> I'm not sure sure that we want to have a hole in our versionin
Hello,
On Sat, 2008-07-12 at 22:45 +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * martin f krafft [Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:09:09 +0200]:
> > I propose that we get rid of our r-releases and simply let the first
> > stable update to lenny be 5.1, followed by 5.2, and so on.
Also, madduck posted that comment on doodl
On 2008-07-12T23:45:29+0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> True, but lenny+1/2 breaks with stable update rules (it contains new
> packages); the question is whether users care. :)
There more than one cluster of users, and there are other stakeholders
such as derived distributions.
I ran testing and a
also sprach Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.07.12.2321 +0200]:
> I'm not sure sure that we want to have a hole in our versioning scheme.
> Since "lenny+1/2" is just another stable update, let's just number it
> like a stable update. So we don't end up with users thinking "You
> released 5.
* martin f krafft [Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:09:09 +0200]:
> I propose that we get rid of our r-releases and simply let the first
> stable update to lenny be 5.1, followed by 5.2, and so on.
I really, really dislike this part. Decimals have always meant a
completely different release, and I'd rather no
On 12/07/08 at 18:09 +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> So lenny will be Debian 5.0. Many people have questioned this
> choice, given how we onconsistently went ...-2.0-2.1-2.2-3.0-3.1-4.0
> in the last decade, but it's the RM's choice and not to be debated.
>
> What is to be debated is how to move o
26 matches
Mail list logo
