Hi,
Am 29.06.19 um 23:32 schrieb Thomas Goirand:
> On 6/29/19 3:33 PM, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
>> Am 29.06.19 um 15:28 schrieb Andrey Rahmatullin:
>>> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 01:53:35PM +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
TLDR; year based release identifiers should be prefered since they are
Hello,
On 30/06/2019 06:53, Alf Gaida wrote:
>>> It will confuse me because in 2021 I will expect release 2021 .
>>> Furthermore, will .7 stand for July ?
>> I assume it's about point releases (which, again, Ubuntu doesn't do
>> AFAIK).
>>
> The keyword will be education - i wrote some times ago:
Another issue is that with a sequential scheme I always know what the
next version is whereas if a year based scheme is used without a set
schedule the version after 19 may be anything from 19 to 25.
Sincerely,
Moshe Piekarski
--
There's no such thing as a stupid question,
But there are
It will confuse me because in 2021 I will expect release 2021 .
Furthermore, will .7 stand for July ?
I assume it's about point releases (which, again, Ubuntu doesn't do
AFAIK).
The keyword will be education - i wrote some times ago: Let people use
wht they are happy with - it will take a blog
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 8:16 PM Tomas Pospisek wrote:
> Let's seriously consider using year based release identifiers.
At this point in the thread it is very clear that which identifier one
prefers is very individual and dependent on use-cases. So we should
add support for more individuals and
On 6/29/19 3:33 PM, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
> Am 29.06.19 um 15:28 schrieb Andrey Rahmatullin:
>> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 01:53:35PM +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
>>> TLDR; year based release identifiers should be prefered since they are
>>> much more intuitive to reason about than codenames and
在 2019-06-29六的 20:21 +0500，Andrey Rahmatullin写道：
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 06:17:12PM +0400, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
> > > > > 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
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 06:17:12PM +0400, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
> >>> 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
On 29/06/2019 17:27, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
> Am 29.06.19 um 14:41 schrieb Jeremy Stanley:
>> On 2019-06-29 13:53:35 +0200 (+0200), Tomas Pospisek wrote:
>> [...]
>>> 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.
Am 29.06.19 um 15:28 schrieb Andrey Rahmatullin:
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 01:53:35PM +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
>> TLDR; year based release identifiers should be prefered since they are
>> much more intuitive to reason about than codenames and sequentialy
>> numbered release identifiers.
>>
>>
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 01:53:35PM +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
> 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,
Am 29.06.19 um 14:41 schrieb Jeremy Stanley:
> On 2019-06-29 13:53:35 +0200 (+0200), Tomas Pospisek wrote:
> [...]
>> 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
On 2019-06-29 13:53:35 +0200 (+0200), Tomas Pospisek wrote:
[...]
> 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
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
