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't do any harm, does it? > > I would vastly prefer not to change our version numbering scheme yet again. > It > was already changed for Lenny to replace r1 with .1. Your proposal would give > us the following followup of numberings for the first point update of our > recent releases: > > Sarge: 3.1r1 > Etch: 4.0r1 > Lenny: 5.0.1 > Squeeze: 6.0.1 > Weezy: 7.1? > > Our users have come to understand now that 5.0.1 is equivalent to 4.0r1, and > that 3.1 is a different full release fom 4.0. Changing it after squeeze to > something different yet again buys them and us nothing but unnecessary churn. > Stability in numbering is worth a lot more than removing an extra ".0" from > the string.
+1 also. 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 the Debian operating system" seems a bit cleaner/professional than the same statement with 6.0 instead of 6. 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]
