hello.
Considering the most important emprovements
introduced in Sarge respect Woody, I suggest you to call the prox stable release
Sarge 4.0.
Best regards.
Alien
We should pay attention.
the sarge is very expected release and it's late has already generated
enough noise about the debian release management.
i think we should just release sarge and try to reduce the noise around sarge.
2005/5/13, Alien [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
hello.
Considering the
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 01:10:41AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Andrea Mennucc]
me, I do my part of the work in Debian
and nobody ever contacted me regarding the choice of the number
What that...? Why on earth would you think you should be contacted
before this sort of decision is
[Kevin Mark]
that would suggest that its the RM who has decided such issues in the
past unilaterilly.
Conventional wisdom is that release management involves so much
drudgery and so little recognition that the *least* we can do is let
the release manager decide on codenames and version
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 03:02:32AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Kevin Mark]
that would suggest that its the RM who has decided such issues in the
past unilaterilly.
Conventional wisdom is that release management involves so much
drudgery and so little recognition that the *least* we can
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 03:02:32AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Kevin Mark]
that would suggest that its the RM who has decided such issues in the
past unilaterilly.
Conventional wisdom is that release management involves so much
drudgery and so little recognition that the *least* we
[Andrea Mennucc]
me, I do my part of the work in Debian
and nobody ever contacted me regarding the choice of the number
What that...? Why on earth would you think you should be contacted
before this sort of decision is made?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
* Jaldhar H. Vyas ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050506 20:00]:
On Fri, 6 May 2005, Marc Haber wrote:
Their fault for releasing a book about unreleased software which is
bound to be outdated the day that sarge will actually release.
Uh-uh and when will that day be? And don't give me any of that
Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
FWIW, I've noticed that 3.1 is already used in quite a lot of
documentation and on websites with articles relating to Debian. It
was announced quite some time ago, and so it would be rather
inconsiderate [gross understatement] to change it at this late
Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
On Fri, 6 May 2005, Marc Haber wrote:
Their fault for releasing a book about unreleased software which is
bound to be outdated the day that sarge will actually release.
Uh-uh and when will that day be? And don't give me any of that when it
is ready nonsense.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andrea Mennucc [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
On Fri, 6 May 2005, Marc Haber wrote:
Their fault for releasing a book about unreleased software which is
bound to be outdated the day that sarge will actually release.
Uh-uh
Marc Haber wrote:
The actual decisions are made in the background without even trying to
talk to the body of developers. For example, the exim 4 maintainers
were not even contacted by whoever made the decision to move the
default MTA property from exim to exim4. We just found our package
to
On Thu, 5 May 2005 10:30:36 -0400 (EDT), Jaldhar H. Vyas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 5 May 2005, Andrea Mennucc wrote:
I dont see it as a big stopper. You are saying that the number 3.1
appears /etc/debian_version (that lives in package base-files)
and in 3 documents (and translations).
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 08:15:13AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
On Thu, 5 May 2005 10:30:36 -0400 (EDT), Jaldhar H. Vyas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 5 May 2005, Andrea Mennucc wrote:
I dont see it as a big stopper. You are saying that the number 3.1
appears /etc/debian_version (that lives
On Fri, 6 May 2005, Marc Haber wrote:
Their fault for releasing a book about unreleased software which is
bound to be outdated the day that sarge will actually release.
Uh-uh and when will that day be? And don't give me any of that when it
is ready nonsense. The release version number was
On Fri, 6 May 2005 13:54:29 -0400 (EDT), Jaldhar H. Vyas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem isn't a concern for quality, it is people like you and Andrea
who don't follow process, who don't contribute when the actual decisions
are being made, but who come out of the woodwork at the last minute
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 08:38:17PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
see shy jo, who argued for 4.0 at the appropriate time to discuss the
version number to use
:-) right
--
Francesco P. Lovergine
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 01:17:45AM +0200, Andrea Mennucc wrote:
Considering that woody was released 19 Jul 2002, it took us
~3 years to release; in the meantime, all most important
components changed completely; and we did a lot of work
in Sarge, that I do not want to see numerically
Hello Bartosz,
* Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-05-05 11:40]:
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 01:17:45AM +0200, Andrea Mennucc wrote:
Considering that woody was released 19 Jul 2002, it took us
~3 years to release; in the meantime, all most important
components changed
Bartosz == Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would prefer to be maintainer of the well known distribution which
*doesn't* bump versions only for the fun of it.
Exactly. This time I think it would have been justified. Consider
* A new installer
* Linux Kernel 2.6
* Gnome
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 11:53:45AM +0200, Nico Golde wrote:
I would prefer to be maintainer of the well known distribution which
*doesn't* bump versions only for the fun of it.
I know that for most people numbers have some magic meaning, but please can
we try to provide stable OS by its
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 03:12:12PM +0530, Ganesan Rajagopal wrote:
Bartosz == Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would prefer to be maintainer of the well known distribution which
*doesn't* bump versions only for the fun of it.
Exactly. This time I think it would have
Wouter == Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Several new architectures
Such as?
Sorry, my mistake. I forgot that woody was released on 11 architectures.
Ganesan
--
Ganesan Rajagopal (rganesan at debian.org) | GPG Key: 1024D/5D8C12EA
Web: http://employees.org/~rganesan|
On Thu, 5 May 2005, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
* Several new architectures
Such as?
negative sparc
negative alpha
negative mips
negative mipsel
...
in fact we addded -8 architectures altogether.
--
Jaldhar H. Vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
La Salle Debain - http://www.braincells.com/debian/
--
To
Joey Hess wrote:
Andrea Mennucc wrote:
now that sarge is frozen, I would like to start a discussion
on the number to associate to Sarge release.
Now that sarge is frozen we have /etc/debian_version, the installation
manual, the release notes, and the website all containing the version
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 03:52:55PM +0200, Andrea Mennucc wrote:
I would bet 10$ that during the freeze more than 300 packages will be
admitted into Sarge.
And I would bet another 5$ that base-files will be one of them.
even considering that base-files has been frozen for, what, half a year
On Thu, 5 May 2005, Andrea Mennucc wrote:
I dont see it as a big stopper. You are saying that the number 3.1
appears /etc/debian_version (that lives in package base-files)
and in 3 documents (and translations).
...and Debian 3.1 Bible whose publisher will be highly annoyed if they are
forced
to, 2005-05-05 kello 15:52 +0200, Andrea Mennucc kirjoitti:
So why nobody did actually change the number then?
Release numbers, like release code names, are up to the release managers
to decide. Since neither is particularly important, there's really not
much point in discussing them at length:
On Thursday 05 May 2005 10:38 am, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
Release numbers, like release code names, are up to the release managers
to decide. Since neither is particularly important, there's really not
much point in discussing them at length: if the release managers want
3.1, then 3.1 is what we
Joey Hess wrote:
Now that sarge is frozen we have /etc/debian_version, the installation
manual, the release notes, and the website all containing the version
number 3.1. I've probably forgotten a few other things. Updating all
these things to change a version number kinda misses the point of a
Andrea Mennucc wrote:
see shy jo, who argued for 4.0 at the appropriate time to discuss the
version number to use
That is puzzling me. In 2003, in the thread starting at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/01/msg00337.html
most people were agreeing with calling sarge 4.0.
hi I see that some people are opposing using 4.0, so I give up.
I just write this e-mail to better understand why
Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 01:17:45AM +0200, Andrea Mennucc wrote:
So I would much prefer if sarge would be called Debian 4
Do you agree?
I would
hi everybody
now that sarge is frozen, I would like to start a discussion
on the number to associate to Sarge release.
According to
http://www.nl.debian.org/releases/sarge/index.en.html
Sarge may be released as Debian 3.1
In 2003, Scott James Remnant proposed in
On Thursday 05 May 2005 01:17, Andrea Mennucc wrote:
[ ... ]
Considering that woody was released 19 Jul 2002, it took us
~3 years to release; in the meantime, all most important
components changed completely; and we did a lot of work
in Sarge, that I do not want to see numerically
represented
Andrea Mennucc wrote:
now that sarge is frozen, I would like to start a discussion
on the number to associate to Sarge release.
Now that sarge is frozen we have /etc/debian_version, the installation
manual, the release notes, and the website all containing the version
number 3.1. I've probably
35 matches
Mail list logo
