Re: debian sarge is 3.2 or 4 ?
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
Re: debian sarge is 3.2 or 4 ?
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 most important emprovements introduced in Sarge respect Woody, I suggest you to call the prox stable release Sarge 4.0. Best regards. Alien
Re: debian sarge is 3.2 or 4 ?
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 made? Is there any formal policy as to how and when these release issues are decided? (regarding codename or release version numbers)? I found this email snippet[1] on -release (which seems the logical 'where') Debian is not a democracy. Debian is a volounteer organisation. The essential difference is: in a democracy, everybody can directly influence the decision. In Debian, the person who does something can tell how he does it (in most cases - and within the limit of the Social Contract, the DFSG and similar documents). ajt is release manager, he does the release, so he decides how he calls it. -vbi that would suggest that its the RM who has decided such issues in the past unilaterilly. cheers, -Kev [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2004/01/msg00029.html -- counter.li.org #238656 -- goto counter.li.org and be counted! `$' $' $ $ _ ,d$$$g$ ,d$$$b. $,d$$$b`$' g$b $,d$$b ,$P' `$ ,$P' `Y$ $$' `$ $ ' `$ $$' `$ $$ $ $$g$ $ $ $ ,$P $ $$ `$g. ,$$ `$$._ _. $ _,g$P $ `$b. ,$$ $$ `Y$$P'$. `YP $$$P' ,$. `Y$$P'$ $. ,$. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: debian sarge is 3.2 or 4 ?
[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 numbers. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: debian sarge is 3.2 or 4 ?
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 do is let the release manager decide on codenames and version numbers. IMHO, watching people spend their time on a thread talking about changing the release version number now that we've already frozen is far more dreary than any of the most tedious work that has to be done to get a release out. But I guess *participating* in it is subjectively less dreary, or there would be more people working on fixing RC bugs and volunteering to help process upgrade reports. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: debian sarge is 3.2 or 4 ?
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 do is let the release manager decide on codenames and version numbers. Hi Peter, I have no difficulty with a decision being made unilaterially. I'd just prefer to have it stated somewhere so that people wont debate something like this near the end of the release cycle and so that folks who are creating dead-tree media would not have worry that things wont be in sync, which would be somewhat detrimental to Debian as not being organized and professional. cheers, Kev -- counter.li.org #238656 -- goto counter.li.org and be counted! `$' $' $ $ _ ,d$$$g$ ,d$$$b. $,d$$$b`$' g$b $,d$$b ,$P' `$ ,$P' `Y$ $$' `$ $ ' `$ $$' `$ $$ $ $$g$ $ $ $ ,$P $ $$ `$g. ,$$ `$$._ _. $ _,g$P $ `$b. ,$$ $$ `Y$$P'$. `YP $$$P' ,$. `Y$$P'$ $. ,$. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: debian sarge is 3.2 or 4 ?
[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 unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian sarge is 3.2 or 4 ?
* 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 when it is ready nonsense. The release version number was ready a long time ago. 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 with dumb attempts at tinkering. That's why Debian has found it so hard to release. Actually, my experience with Marc is quite positive. He is one of the maintainers who actually cares about the state of his packages in sarge very much, and tries to bring them into the best possible shape. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian sarge is 3.2 or 4 ?
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 stage. IIRC, it was not announced. Indeed, the reason we use codenames like sarge is precisely because we don't want to decide the version number at the beginning; we want to be able to decide what that should be when we actually release. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian sarge is 3.2 or 4 ?
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. The release version number was ready a long time ago. The problem isn't a concern for quality, it is people like you and Andrea who don't follow process, me, I do my part of the work in Debian and nobody ever contacted me regarding the choice of the number a. who don't contribute when the actual decisions are being made, on the opposite, I am happy to contribute : I always vote, for example a. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian sarge is 3.2 or 4 ?
-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 and when will that day be? And don't give me any of that when it is ready nonsense. The release version number was ready a long time ago. The problem isn't a concern for quality, it is people like you and Andrea who don't follow process, me, I do my part of the work in Debian and nobody ever contacted me regarding the choice of the number No-one contacted me, either. But that's OK, since it wasn't my choice. I really couldn't care less what the number was, in any case. 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 stage. Have you considered the huge impact of changing the version number? It's to no-one's advantage to do this. Regards, Roger - -- Roger Leigh Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/ Debian GNU/Linuxhttp://www.debian.org/ GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/ iD8DBQFCfQ8sVcFcaSW/uEgRAnVKAJ9w0BGmEqX1G09ki0wYhUlomeWIewCgpkLR /DXbURBIm2niQSIYeDp1cEI= =R/6k -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian sarge is 3.2 or 4 ?
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 be at important priority some day. Start of thread on this mailing list, default MTA for sarge (also the first hit on google for that): Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your participation on that same thread: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/07/msg01187.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/07/msg01261.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/07/msg01194.html Massage in thread prior to that, CCed to [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: debian sarge is 3.2 or 4 ?
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). ...and Debian 3.1 Bible whose publisher will be highly annoyed if they are forced to change the title and all references just as they are about to print. Their fault for releasing a book about unreleased software which is bound to be outdated the day that sarge will actually release. Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber |Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG Rightful Heir | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Re: debian sarge is 3.2 or 4 ?
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 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 change the title and all references just as they are about to print. Their fault for releasing a book about unreleased software which is bound to be outdated the day that sarge will actually release. A lot of users request just such a book. It's been years since we had one, and it's been sorely missed by a lot of new users. - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian sarge is 3.2 or 4 ?
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 ready a long time ago. 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 with dumb attempts at tinkering. That's why Debian has found it so hard to release. A book is just a minor example. Do you think the CTO of a Debian-using enterprise will just be reading slashdot at breakfast one day, see oh sarge has released and do a dist-upgrade when he comes into the office? People plan weeks if not months in advance for this sort of thing. If Debian is to be so unreliable, we cannot give even basic assurances about our next release, we have doomed ourselves for _any_ kind of serious use. Luckily I don't think most of our fellow DDs are as lackadaisical as you are making yourself out to be. -- Jaldhar H. Vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED] La Salle Debain - http://www.braincells.com/debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian sarge is 3.2 or 4 ?
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 with dumb attempts at tinkering. 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 be at important priority some day. Things like these demotivate people from trying to participate with _any_ decision. Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber |Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG Rightful Heir | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Re: debian sarge is 3.2 or 4 ?
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? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian sarge is 3.2 or 4 ?
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 represented as sarge = woody + 0.1 So I would much prefer if sarge would be called Debian 4 Do you agree? 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 quality and not version number? Calling sarge 4.0 won't make it better. regards fEnIo -- ,''`. Bartosz Fenski | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | pgp:0x13fefc40 | irc:fEnIo : :' : 32-050 Skawina - Glowackiego 3/15 - w. malopolskie - Poland `. `' phone:+48602383548 | proud Debian maintainer and user `- http://skawina.eu.org | jid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | rlu:172001 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: debian sarge is 3.2 or 4 ?
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 completely; and we did a lot of work in Sarge, that I do not want to see numerically represented as sarge = woody + 0.1 So I would much prefer if sarge would be called Debian 4 Do you agree? 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 quality and not version number? Calling sarge 4.0 won't make it better. No but it will show that many things changed. Normally if I see software for exampled which increases the version number to 0.1 it shows that only minor fixes were done or small new features are available. I don't think that the new installer for instance is only a minor change. Anyway, time is too late and there are things more important to be done. Regards Nico -- Nico Golde - [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GPG: 1024D/73647CFF http://www.ngolde.de | http://www.muttng.org | http://grml.org VIM has two modes - the one in which it beeps and the one in which it doesn't -- encrypted mail preferred pgpTEUDaHkBfb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: debian sarge is 3.2 or 4 ?
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 2.8 * KDE 3.3 * glibc 2.3.2 * Several new architectures 4.0 would be justified. I know that for most people numbers have some magic meaning, but please can we try to provide stable OS by its quality and not version number? Calling sarge 4.0 won't make it better. It won't, but it would (rightly) indicate that it's a major upgrade from 3.1. Ganesan -- Ganesan Rajagopal (rganesan at debian.org) | GPG Key: 1024D/5D8C12EA Web: http://employees.org/~rganesan| http://rganesan.blogspot.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian sarge is 3.2 or 4 ?
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 quality and not version number? Calling sarge 4.0 won't make it better. No but it will show that many things changed. Normally if I see software for exampled which increases the version number to 0.1 it shows that only minor fixes were done or small new features are available. I don't think that the new installer for instance is only a minor change. I suppose it's hard to find people thinking that we didn't change many things. All in all it's almost 3 years since last release, so that's natural that most things has been changed. Trusted users know what sarge is and how long it took to prepare it so the version number is probably the least significant part of it. New users don't know our numbering scheme so this fact doesn't matter for there too. And in fact Debian is more known for its toy-story-based naming. How many times did you hear that someone said that he/she is using Debian 3.0? Most people say they use potato/woody/sarge. Anyway, time is too late and there are things more important to be done. ACK ;) regards fEnIo -- ,''`. Bartosz Fenski | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | pgp:0x13fefc40 | irc:fEnIo : :' : 32-050 Skawina - Glowackiego 3/15 - w. malopolskie - Poland `. `' phone:+48602383548 | proud Debian maintainer and user `- http://skawina.eu.org | jid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | rlu:172001 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: debian sarge is 3.2 or 4 ?
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 been justified. Consider * A new installer * Linux Kernel 2.6 * Gnome 2.8 * KDE 3.3 * glibc 2.3.2 Indeed. * Several new architectures Such as? -- The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely one bananosecond -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian sarge is 3.2 or 4 ?
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| http://rganesan.blogspot.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian sarge is 3.2 or 4 ?
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 UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian sarge is 3.2 or 4 ?
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 number 3.1. I've probably forgotten a few other things. 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). How much work does it take to change the above? (If I add access to the above, I would offer my time to do it myself). Updating all these things to change a version number kinda misses the point of a freeze, doesn't it? yes and no 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. And I would bet another 5$ that both the release notes and the installation manual will need to be edited at least once before we release. Moreover. For me, the point of the freeze is to release a new Debian, and be proud of it. Part of my pride would be highlighted by seeing it named 4.0. Call me sentimental. 3.1 seems just a minor upgrade, something that comes out to fix a few bugs and add a few minor features, not what summarized 3 years of work and commitment. 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. I inderstand from your signature that you were for 4.0 as well (altough I do not find your support in above thread). So why nobody did actually change the number then? a. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian sarge is 3.2 or 4 ?
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 already, and hasn't seen a single update in that time? -- The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely one bananosecond -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian sarge is 3.2 or 4 ?
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 change the title and all references just as they are about to print. Really, give this non-topic a rest and do something useful for Debian. -- Jaldhar H. Vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED] La Salle Debain - http://www.braincells.com/debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian sarge is 3.2 or 4 ?
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: if the release managers want 3.1, then 3.1 is what we get. Meanwhile, there are still 83 release critical bugs that affect sarge. :) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian sarge is 3.2 or 4 ?
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 get. At least not in the common case. I imagine there would be some consternation if the release team announced we were entering the freeze for Debian 2.9 codename sarge. ;-) Daniel -- /--- Daniel Burrows [EMAIL PROTECTED] --\ | Of course you can't see the guards. They DON'T EXIST! | | Oh my god, we're surrounded! Run away, run away! | | -- Fluble| \-- Listener-supported public radio -- NPR -- http://www.npr.org ---/ pgpGQcEt7kdEb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: debian sarge is 3.2 or 4 ?
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 freeze, doesn't it? I forgot a few things that I found on google by searching for debian 3.1: - Wiley::Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 Bible. Dead trees, in stores now, apparently. - the other 100 thousand hits, though I haven't looked at them thuroughly. ;-) -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: debian sarge is 3.2 or 4 ?
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. I inderstand from your signature that you were for 4.0 as well (altough I do not find your support in above thread). IIRC it was an earlier thread; afaik the release managers decided on 3.1. The thread you referenced was semi-pointless since it had, again, already been decided by that point. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: debian sarge is 3.2 or 4 ?
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 prefer to be maintainer of the well known distribution which *doesn't* bump versions only for the fun of it. what is wrong in bumping version numbers? (and I mean, particularly in this context) so, (I am just curious) , why do people (e.g. you) oppose that? joke we all learn from arithmetic that there is an infinite number of positive integers, so we are not in risk of exhausting them /joke I know that for most people numbers have some magic meaning, but please can we try to provide stable OS by its quality and not version number? Calling sarge 4.0 won't make it better. neither calling it 3.1 and I never implied that calling it 4.0 makes it better it just sounds better (for me at least) neither choice prevents us from working in making Sarge better -- bye a. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
debian sarge is 3.2 or 4 ?
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 http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/01/msg00337.html that Sarge should be Debian 4; some (most?) people did agree. But some other people refer to sarge as Debian 3.1 (or 3.2) 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 as sarge = woody + 0.1 So I would much prefer if sarge would be called Debian 4 Do you agree? a. (ps: I apologize if this has been discussed recently... I googled around, but did not find any recent reference) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian sarge is 3.2 or 4 ?
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 as sarge = woody + 0.1 So I would much prefer if sarge would be called Debian 4 Do you agree? Well, it doesn't really matter to me personally, but am I correct that the changes from Woody to Sarge have been at least as big as they were from Potato to Woody (where the version number was bumped from 2.2 - 3.0)? If yes, and with that in mind, it could probably be justified that Sarge ships as 4.0, I guess. -- Frederik Dannemare | http://sentinel.dk | http://linuxworlddomination.dk http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=Frederik+Dannemare http://www.ubuntulinux.org/wiki/FrederikDannemare Key fingerprint = 30CF 7AD3 17D9 1A63 A730 ECA6 0D4C 2C97 9D9A 238E -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian sarge is 3.2 or 4 ?
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 forgotten a few other things. Updating all these things to change a version number kinda misses the point of a freeze, doesn't it? -- see shy jo, who argued for 4.0 at the appropriate time to discuss the version number to use signature.asc Description: Digital signature
