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. > ??? (i.e Debian Stable !) > 2b. Some kind of updates where only End-user ???software-update > would be updated, but not the core libraries. > In the proprietary software industry, it can be considered as > installing a new version of a user application. > Debian don't have such release (actually we could consider > backport to be this kind of thing). > 3. Hardware support improvements (e.g Etch-n-a-half) > 4. Stability and security improvements (e.g point releases) > > In my perfect world, the major number would be for #1 only. But since > this rule wasn't followed since woody 3.0 so it's too late and we > can't > switch back.
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 > > be stable updates. > > Surely those would be 7.0~<some_ID> ;-) Combining the above two comments, I think lenny's release number should be reassigned to 1:2.6. Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
