On Sunday 10 July 2005 21:55, Joris Huizer wrote: > Johan Kullstam wrote: > > Let me see if I understand you correctly. Your > > reason for having the ambiguity of wether to call > > it 3.2 or 4.0 is just to keep people from assigning > > etch a number? > > I think this is quite logical, as there is some > structure in those numbers - 4.0 means a big leap, > 3.2 means "smaller " change; nobody can tell right > now how big the step is from sarge to etch, as it's > development has just started > ofcourse, it's just up to the debian development team > to decide wether the changes are big enough to call > it 4.0 (anyone know why sarge became 3.1?) > > just some thoughts > > Joris
I'd add that it's not deliberate ambiguity as a means to any particular end, so much as it not being an appropriate stage of the development of etch for the decision to be made if a major or minor version upgrade is appropriate. This does matter; this list wouldn't take long to hear from a whole tribe of people with nothing better to do than complain about unimportant things if they decided it was to be 3.2 now and then it turned out that the changes were massive and the upgrade path difficult... likewise if they decided 4.0 now and then it turned out the changes were small and relatively minor . Mark -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
