Re: Drop the minor release number

* Eduard Bloch ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050708 17:10]: Debian 4.0 for etch, 4.1 for etch stable release 1, 4.2 for etch stable release 2, 4.2a for etch stable release 2 with a minor CD mastering fix (for example), etc.pp. Well, Woody was 3.0, Sarge was 3.1, so the logical next number would be 3.11

Re: Drop the minor release number

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Andreas Barth wrote: Well, Woody was 3.0, Sarge was 3.1, so the logical next number would be 3.11 for Workgroups. GREAT! I'd vote for this! ;-) Kind regards Andreas, who really loves such things like finding version numbers and names because it is so

Re: Drop the minor release number

On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 08:40:54AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: * Eduard Bloch ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050708 17:10]: Debian 4.0 for etch, 4.1 for etch stable release 1, 4.2 for etch stable release 2, 4.2a for etch stable release 2 with a minor CD mastering fix (for example), etc.pp. Well,

Re: Drop the minor release number

Andreas Barth wrote: * Eduard Bloch ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050708 17:10]: Does the release team agree with this change and also debian-release is not a discussion list, so please don't CC it for discussion threads. I think that's grossly unfair. There is nothing in debian-release's

Re: Drop the minor release number

Am Freitag, den 08.07.2005, 17:05 +0200 schrieb Eduard Bloch: There is really no reason for having a minor release number after dot in the Debian version, it justs leads people to pointless discussions like this one. Well, your suggestion sounds pointless to me. I like it though. Skip the

Re: Drop the minor release number

Hi, * Drew Parsons ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050710 15:15]: I think that's grossly unfair. There is nothing in debian-release's description to give any hint that it is not a discussion list. Thanks for your hint. This is fixed now. Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Drop the minor release number

#include hallo.h * Thomas Hood [Fri, Jul 08 2005, 04:16:01PM]: If Debian continues to use the Release When Ready strategy then I would suggest that the number of the next release be its ordinal in the historical sequence of releases, which is 9 by my reckoning (buzz, rex, bo, hamm, slink,

Re: Drop the minor release number

On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 05:05:09PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote: Then we would have Debian 4.0 for etch, 4.1 for etch stable release 1, 4.2 for etch stable release 2, 4.2a for etch stable release 2 with a minor CD mastering fix (for example), etc.pp. Does the release team agree with this

Re: Drop the minor release number

Eduard Bloch wrote: Does the release team agree with this change or do we need another consensus (or even a GR)? Not speaking for the release team, but -- a) As has already been established, choosing the release number is one of the only perks of the release managers. b) Mentioning a

Re: Drop the minor release number

Eduard Bloch wrote: Then we would have Debian 4.0 for etch, 4.1 for etch stable release 1, 4.2 for etch stable release 2, 4.2a for etch stable release 2 with a minor CD mastering fix (for example), etc.pp. Counting numbers start at one. The first update would be the second release of

Re: Drop the minor release number

On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 09:50:35AM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote: Eduard Bloch wrote: Then we would have Debian 4.0 for etch, 4.1 for etch stable release 1, 4.2 for etch stable release 2, 4.2a for etch stable release 2 with a minor CD mastering fix (for example), etc.pp. Counting numbers

Re: Drop the minor release number

also sprach Bob Proulx [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.07.08.1750 +0200]: Counting numbers start at one. Not in the computer world. -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' :proud Debian developer and author:

Re: Drop the minor release number

martin f krafft wrote: also sprach Bob Proulx [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.07.08.1750 +0200]: Counting numbers start at one. Not in the computer world. How do you explain RCS/CVS? The first revision after a checkin is 1.1. :-) Bob signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Drop the minor release number

also sprach Bob Proulx [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.07.08.1854 +0200]: How do you explain RCS/CVS? I am sorry to everyone who tries. Same applies to subversion. -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' :proud Debian

Re: Drop the minor release number

On 2005-07-08 Eduard Bloch wrote: Debian 4.0 for etch, 4.1 for etch stable release 1, 4.2 for etch stable release 2, 4.2a for etch stable release 2 with a minor CD mastering fix (for example), etc.pp. I hate letters in version strings, what about: 4.0etch release 4.1etch minor

Re: Drop the minor release number

People, On 2005-07-08 Wouter Verhelst wrote: Counting numbers start at one. The first update would be the second release of etch. So really it should be 4.1 for the first release of etch and 4.2 for the second release and so on. Except that we're computer people, and we start counting

Re: Drop the minor release number

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Bob Proulx wrote: Eduard Bloch wrote: Then we would have Debian 4.0 for etch, 4.1 for etch stable release 1, 4.2 for etch stable release 2, 4.2a for etch stable release 2 with a minor CD mastering fix (for example), etc.pp. Counting numbers

Re: Drop the minor release number

martin f krafft wrote: also sprach Bob Proulx [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.07.08.1750 +0200]: Counting numbers start at one. Not in the computer world. You confuse counting with addressing. The first byte is always the first byte, but it starts at address zero. Helmut Wollmersdorfer -- To

Re: Drop the minor release number

On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 05:05:09PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote: Then we would have Debian 4.0 for etch, 4.1 for etch stable release 1, 4.2 for etch stable release 2, 4.2a for etch stable release 2 with a minor CD mastering fix (for example), etc.pp. Does the release team agree with this

Re: Drop the minor release number

also sprach Helmut Wollmersdorfer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.07.08.2106 +0200]: You confuse counting with addressing. You confuse counting with labeling. Are we counting releases or labeling them? -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft

Re: Drop the minor release number

On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 10:54:38AM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote: martin f krafft wrote: also sprach Bob Proulx [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.07.08.1750 +0200]: Counting numbers start at one. Not in the computer world. How do you explain RCS/CVS? The first revision after a checkin is 1.1. :-)

Re: Drop the minor release number

On Friday 08 July 2005 17:05, Eduard Bloch wrote: Debian 4.0 for etch, 4.1 for etch stable release 1, 4.2 for etch stable release 2, 4.2a for etch stable release 2 with a minor CD mastering fix (for example), etc.pp. I second this. Regards, Anders Breindahl. pgp44xdzKBgIv.pgp

Re: Drop the minor release number

On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 11:22:12PM +0200, Anders Breindahl wrote: On Friday 08 July 2005 17:05, Eduard Bloch wrote: Debian 4.0 for etch, 4.1 for etch stable release 1, 4.2 for etch stable release 2, 4.2a for etch stable release 2 with a minor CD mastering fix (for example), etc.pp. I

Re: Drop the minor release number

martin f krafft wrote: You confuse counting with labeling. No. You make a sidestep;-) Are we counting releases or labeling them? That's just a matter of taste. IMHO a version number like $major.$minor.$fix is usual, understandable by humans, and supported by a broad range of utilities

Re: Drop the minor release number

Helmut Wollmersdorfer wrote: [snip] The releases of Debian could use '9.9.9-9' like it is used for packages. This should give enough flexibility. And if the release manager likes to jump to 7.3.0.21-5 for etch - why not? Then 9.9.9 would be the upstream version. I hope Debian releases stay