Hello,
On 30/06/2019 06:53, Alf Gaida wrote:
>>> It will confuse me because in 2021 I will expect release 2021 .
>>> Furthermore, will .7 stand for July ?
>> I assume it's about point releases (which, again, Ubuntu doesn't do
>> AFAIK).
>>
> The keyword will be education - i wrote some times ago:
Another issue is that with a sequential scheme I always know what the
next version is whereas if a year based scheme is used without a set
schedule the version after 19 may be anything from 19 to 25.
Sincerely,
Moshe Piekarski
--
There's no such thing as a stupid question,
But there are
It will confuse me because in 2021 I will expect release 2021 .
Furthermore, will .7 stand for July ?
I assume it's about point releases (which, again, Ubuntu doesn't do
AFAIK).
The keyword will be education - i wrote some times ago: Let people use
wht they are happy with - it will take a blog
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 8:16 PM Tomas Pospisek wrote:
> Let's seriously consider using year based release identifiers.
At this point in the thread it is very clear that which identifier one
prefers is very individual and dependent on use-cases. So we should
add support for more individuals and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2019 00:01:56 +0200
Source: iptables-netflow
Binary: iptables-netflow-dkms iptables-netflow-dkms-dbgsym irqtop
Architecture: source amd64 all
Version: 2.4-1
Distribution: experimental
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Axel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Format: 1.8
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2019 09:33:57 +1200
Source: survex
Architecture: source
Version: 1.2.39-2
Distribution: experimental
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Olly Betts
Changed-By: Olly Betts
Changes:
survex (1.2.39-2) experimental;
On 6/29/19 3:33 PM, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
> Am 29.06.19 um 15:28 schrieb Andrey Rahmatullin:
>> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 01:53:35PM +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
>>> TLDR; year based release identifiers should be prefered since they are
>>> much more intuitive to reason about than codenames and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 20:00:12 +
Source: patch
Architecture: source
Version: 2.7.6-4
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS)
Changed-By: Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS)
Closes: 890746
Changes:
patch
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Format: 1.8
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 20:48:15 +0300
Source: qtwebengine-opensource-src
Binary: qtwebengine5-dev qtwebengine5-private-dev libqt5webengine5
libqt5webenginecore5 libqt5webenginewidgets5 libqt5webengine-data
qml-module-qtwebengine
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Format: 1.8
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 08:15:44 -0300
Source: jdupes
Architecture: source
Version: 1.13.1-1
Distribution: experimental
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Joao Eriberto Mota Filho
Changed-By: Joao Eriberto Mota Filho
Changes:
jdupes
在 2019-06-29六的 20:21 +0500，Andrey Rahmatullin写道：
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 06:17:12PM +0400, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
> > > > > As others here I am starting to get confused by the release code
> > > > > names, as are my peers that are not that much into Debian. And
> > > > > sequential release numbers
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 06:17:12PM +0400, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
> >>> As others here I am starting to get confused by the release code
> >>> names, as are my peers that are not that much into Debian. And
> >>> sequential release numbers are devoid of any semantics except for
> >>> their
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Format: 1.8
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 16:54:45 +0300
Source: qtquickcontrols-opensource-src
Architecture: source
Version: 5.12.4-1
Distribution: experimental
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Debian Qt/KDE Maintainers
Changed-By: Dmitry Shachnev
Changes:
On 29/06/2019 17:27, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
> Am 29.06.19 um 14:41 schrieb Jeremy Stanley:
>> On 2019-06-29 13:53:35 +0200 (+0200), Tomas Pospisek wrote:
>> [...]
>>> As others here I am starting to get confused by the release code
>>> names, as are my peers that are not that much into Debian.
Am 29.06.19 um 15:28 schrieb Andrey Rahmatullin:
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 01:53:35PM +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
>> TLDR; year based release identifiers should be prefered since they are
>> much more intuitive to reason about than codenames and sequentialy
>> numbered release identifiers.
>>
>>
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 01:53:35PM +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
> TLDR; year based release identifiers should be prefered since they are
> much more intuitive to reason about than codenames and sequentialy
> numbered release identifiers.
>
> If Debian should improve/change release identifiers,
Am 29.06.19 um 14:41 schrieb Jeremy Stanley:
> On 2019-06-29 13:53:35 +0200 (+0200), Tomas Pospisek wrote:
> [...]
>> As others here I am starting to get confused by the release code
>> names, as are my peers that are not that much into Debian. And
>> sequential release numbers are devoid of any
> "Enrico" == Enrico Zini writes:
Enrico> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 10:42:29PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> I hope you all won't mind too much that Sean and I have
>> privileged our own point of view, in the columns which contain
>> value judgements, and that we hope to retain
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 21:30:45 +0900
Source: mikutter
Binary: mikutter
Architecture: source all
Version: 3.9.0~alpha3+dfsg-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: HIGUCHI Daisuke (VDR dai)
Changed-By: HIGUCHI Daisuke (VDR
On 2019-06-29 13:53:35 +0200 (+0200), Tomas Pospisek wrote:
[...]
> As others here I am starting to get confused by the release code
> names, as are my peers that are not that much into Debian. And
> sequential release numbers are devoid of any semantics except for
> their monotonically increasing
Am 25.06.19 um 08:08 schrieb Ansgar:
> what do people think about getting rid of current suite names ("stable",
> "testing", "unstable") for most purposes? We already recommend using
> codenames instead as those don't change their meaning when a new release
> happens.
>
> Related to that I
Enrico Zini writes ("Re: Survey results: git packaging practices / repository
format"):
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 10:42:29PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I hope you all won't mind too much that Sean and I have privileged our
> > own point of view, in the columns which contain value judgements,
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 10:42:29PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I hope you all won't mind too much that Sean and I have privileged our
> own point of view, in the columns which contain value judgements, and
> that we hope to retain that property of the page.
I have no problem with you making a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 11:17:16 +0200
Source: openjdk-8
Architecture: source
Version: 8u222-b07-2
Distribution: experimental
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: OpenJDK Team
Changed-By: Matthias Klose
Changes:
openjdk-8 (8u222-b07-2)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 10:48:23 +0200
Source: openjdk-8
Architecture: source
Version: 8u222-b07-1
Distribution: experimental
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: OpenJDK Team
Changed-By: Matthias Klose
Changes:
openjdk-8 (8u222-b07-1)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 17:27:53 +1000
Source: gitlab-ci-multi-runner
Architecture: source
Version: 12.0.1+dfsg-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Dmitry Smirnov
Changed-By: Dmitry Smirnov
Closes: 921530 924532
On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 03:38:48PM -0400, Boyuan Yang wrote:
> Dear -devel list,
>
> (Please forward this email to proper mailing lists if there's other lists that
> this email would suit in better.)
>
> I noticed that for all bug reports that orphan a package in Debian, a semi-
> standard
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 08:46:08 +0200
Source: rust-encoding-rs
Architecture: source
Version: 0.8.15-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: high
Maintainer: Debian Rust Maintainers
Changed-By: kpcyrd
Changes:
rust-encoding-rs (0.8.15-2)
28 matches
Mail list logo
