Am 25.06.19 um 08:08 schrieb Ansgar:
> what do people think about getting rid of current suite names ("stable",
> "testing", "unstable") for most purposes? We already recommend using
> codenames instead as those don't change their meaning when a new release
> happens.
>
> Related to that I would like to be able to write something like
>
> deb http://deb.debian.org/debian debian11 main
> deb http://security.debian.org/debian-security debian11-security main
>
> in sources.list as codenames confuse people.
>
> Ubuntu already has no suite names, only codenames, but having to map
> "Ubuntu 18.04" to "bionic" instead of just writing the version in
> sources.list is annoying (I always have to look up the codename to be
> sure as I don't use Ubuntu that much).
TLDR; year based release identifiers should be prefered since they are
much more intuitive to reason about than codenames and sequentialy
numbered release identifiers.
If Debian should improve/change release identifiers, then I'd suggest to
ponder a year based versioning scheme (as Ubuntu is using).
As others here I am starting to get confused by the release code names,
as are my peers that are not that much into Debian. And sequential
release numbers are devoid of any semantics except for their
monotonically increasing character.
On the other hand, using year numbers as release identifiers has the
advantage of:
* getting rid of the need to remember arbitrary names and their sequence
* being linked to and rooted in everyday human experience, which makes
it intuitive and easy to reason about releases
When reasoning about an installation of Ubuntu "14.04" one can easily
come to the conclusion, that it's probably wise to upgrade, that release
being 5 years old, whereas an "16.04" might still smell reasonably fresh
and is probalby still OK to run.
Let's seriously consider using year based release identifiers.
*t
