On Aug 23, Anand Kumria wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > On Fri, 22 Aug 1997, Richard G. Roberto wrote: > > > A while ago I posted my feelings on this to Debian private, > > but it was _very_ ill received at the time. I'll restate it > > now. Commercial products do not rename their OS every time > > there's a bug fix! I suggested adopting a more commercial > > approach to release naming for the reasons it is now being > > done. I suggested only incrementing the revision number > > (i.e. issuing a point release) when one of three criteria > > were met: > > The name of a product, and its version number are two distinct things. > Windows95 is the name of a product; is has (at least) two versions one is > 4.000a the other is OSR2 4.000b -- not I'm not familiar with Windows95 and > I might have got this wrong; I'm just trying to use an example to > illustrate here.
In fact, Bill Gates states that "there are no significant bugs in our released software" And he will never release a new version because of fixed bugs (because it would not sell). It's crazy, but it is what he said (in German magazine FOCUS Nr.43 +/- 1) [snip] > > Its obvious that perspective buyers feel the same way, and > > experienced marketers(sp?) know this. This is why they have made > > these suggestions to us. What Bruce has done is a > > compromise to this. The name will still identify a > > "snapshot" of the stable release relative to a series of > > "fixes" against a major release, it will just do it in a > > less confusing manner. > > It is obvious? In that case would you expect such a long thread about it? > Too me, 1.3.1 identifies a snapshot of the system, as does 1.3.2 - the > learning curve is slight and once learnt is used so routinely throughout > the software industry that I wouldn't expect the learning to be a > significant hardship. Too me, 1.3 rev 1 identifies a snapshot, too. For 1.3.1 rev 1, see below. For the long thread, let me say: Every time there are things misunderstood, and people who want to rant a bit about things they don't like, don't understand, or can't change. [unappropriate discussion about leadership snipped] > This integrity agrument does not seem at all clear. Bruce has posted (so > far) only twice with details of what is happenning; every other post has > been in response to some other person. There was also a post from Manoj > which is similiar to what Bruce has suggested. > > So far I have seen two schemes for 1.3: > > Scheme 1: > 1.3.1 will be renamed 1.3.1 Revision 0 and each change will > increment the right-hand most digit. Thus the next one will be 1.3.1 > Revision 1, then 1.3.1 Revision 2. > > Scheme 2: > 1.3.1 will be renamed 1.3 Revision 1, and each chnage will > increment the right-hand most digit. Thus the next one will be 1.3 > Revision 2, then 1.3 Revision 3 > > In the case of scheme 2; why bother? In the case of Scheme 1 why do you > need an additional change number? /etc/debian_version is 1.3 - what is > wrong with using the '.1' for the revision number? OK, here once again (and I only repeat what others, like Bruce and Manoj had said): Scheme 1: This is only, because the new version naming scheme was introduced *after* releasing 1.3. Because Debian supports *fixed* versions (so you can identify a version number with the content), it is inappropriate to change the names afterwards. Scheme 2: Will be used for the next release codename hamm. So we have 2.0, 2.0 rev 1 and so on. This is done to indicate the relativly minor changes done in each revision, and to indicate that 1.3.1 and 1.3.1 rev 1 have only small differences. The same for 2.0 and 2.0 rev 1. > It has been suggested that this is becasue some CD manufacturers don't > want to try and sell as fast a moving target as Debian. They want slower > numbers. What happens when another manufacturer wants the same? The issue > here is that CD manufacturers have failed to understand, in my opinion, > Debian _current_ version numbering. This doesn't matter. The naming scheme was choosen, and here it is. It applies to all things involved in debian, not only CD's. > You should be informing CD manufacturers that the current version of > Debian is 1.3 - that if they label it any other way, it is not an official > Debian CD. You also suggest that they include some text along the lines of > "As with most software in the computer industry, changes wil > occur. Once you have completed installation of your Debian GNU/Linux > computer system, we recommended that you use the version control tools > provided to apply any updates that might have appeared." This would indeed be a neat statement - combined with a remark and pointer to www.debian.org or ftp.debian.org. Bye, Marcus -- "Rhubarb is no Egyptian god." Marcus Brinkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
