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 should be 4.0 as the difference from Woody was > already too large, to which the release team IIRC answered "it would > be right but it's too late"). Since Etch released (2007), we have > always used x.0.
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 accurately describes stable point updates. Whereas, 6.1 seems like a much more experimental update. Also, as I mentioned elsewhere, testing could start to get beta-like versions numbers, which would be useful for branding snapshots (e.g. 6.9.20100912). Best wishes, Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
