On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 17:12:15 +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> On 15/09/2010 16:27, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> >
> > I was thinking about this overnight, and I think dropping .0 does
> > actually make a lot of sense for marketing/publicity purposes. A
> > release announcement along the lines of "The D
On 15/09/2010 16:27, Michael Gilbert wrote:
>
> I was thinking about this overnight, and I think dropping .0 does
> actually make a lot of sense for marketing/publicity purposes. A
> release announcement along the lines of "The Debian project is proud
> to announce the release of version 6 of t
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 15:23:30 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On tiisdei 14 Septimber 2010, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > So, for the past years we have had x.0.y with growing `y' for point
> > releases, and skiping to (x+1).0.0. And the zero in the middle carries
> > no meaning anymore.
>
> It also doesn
On tiisdei 14 Septimber 2010, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> So, for the past years we have had x.0.y with growing `y' for point
> releases, and skiping to (x+1).0.0. And the zero in the middle carries
> no meaning anymore.
It also doesn't do any harm, does it?
I would vastly prefer not to change our versi
* Gunnar Wolf [100914 19:25]:
> We have carried a major.minor scheme as a release numbering scheme
> since the Early Days,
Actually, AFAIK since lenny we no longer use major.minor but
release.andhalf.point.
There just has not been any 5.1.0 (aka lenny-and-half).
Bernhard R. Link
--
T
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 09:23:27PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:05:57PM +0200, Simon Paillard wrote:
> >On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:25:25PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> >> We have carried a major.minor scheme as a release numbering scheme
> >> since the Early Days,
> >[..
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:05:57PM +0200, Simon Paillard wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:25:25PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
>> We have carried a major.minor scheme as a release numbering scheme
>> since the Early Days,
>[..]
>> So, for the past years we have had x.0.y with growing `y' for point
>
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:25:25PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> We have carried a major.minor scheme as a release numbering scheme
> since the Early Days,
[..]
> So, for the past years we have had x.0.y with growing `y' for point
> releases, and skiping to (x+1).0.0. And the zero in the middle carri
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:13:35 -0400, Noah Meyerhans wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 01:58:51PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > The .0 actually has quite a bit relevance since it signifies a new
> > major long-term release. It also demonstrates stability when used in
> > conjunction with the thir
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 01:58:51PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> The .0 actually has quite a bit relevance since it signifies a new
> major long-term release. It also demonstrates stability when used in
> conjunction with the third digit. 6.0.1 seems like a rather minor
> update, which accurate
On 09/14/2010 07:58 PM, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 12:25:25 -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> We have carried a major.minor scheme as a release numbering scheme
>> since the Early Days, but it has lost relevance basically since Sarge
>> (3.1 - But by the time it was finally r
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 12:25:25 -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We have carried a major.minor scheme as a release numbering scheme
> since the Early Days, but it has lost relevance basically since Sarge
> (3.1 - But by the time it was finally released, some discussion was
> made whether Sarge sho
Hi,
We have carried a major.minor scheme as a release numbering scheme
since the Early Days, but it has lost relevance basically since Sarge
(3.1 - But by the time it was finally released, some discussion was
made whether Sarge should be 4.0 as the difference from Woody was
already too large, to w
13 matches
Mail list logo
