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. 1.0-1.1-1.2-1.3 2.0-2.1-2.2 3.0-3.1 4.0 It does give a problem for 5 since by this pattern there can never be another release so actually 5.0 doesn't fit. Oh dear. :) > What is to be debated is how to move on from here. > > 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. > > 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. > > lenny+1 would be released as 6.0. > > This would add sense to our versioning scheme (and help avoid those > discussions in the future). Well releases are further apart than they once were, so perhaps a new major every release makes sense. > Instead of long flamewars and floods of AOL posts, I suggest you > update http://doodle.ch/8zauai3nqges2ur8 if you're in favour or you > oppose. You can use http://doodle.ch/syndication/8zauai3nqges2ur8 to > track submissions. > > If you do have something to say, then reply. Well hopefully I did say something. -- Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]