I approve
Drew Parsons wrote:
I remember some of us belatedly suggested sarge should be Debian 4.0,
though it was too late (May?) to accept that.
(it was me)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On 20050708T181259-0400, Johan Kullstam wrote:
What signal is meant by 3.1 versus 4.0? Does your intended audience
have any concept of the distinction?
The usual distinction, when it is made, is that bumping the major number
indicates a disruptive upgrade
On 7/12/05, Andrea Mennucc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On 20050708T181259-0400, Johan Kullstam wrote:
What signal is meant by 3.1 versus 4.0? Does your intended audience
have any concept of the distinction?
The usual distinction, when it is made, is that
I suggested Debian IV, to *really* get rid of minor version numbers,
permanently. Initial release would be Debian IV r0. Point releases would be
Debian IV r1, etc. Next release, Debian V, etc.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 01:57:54 -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
I suggested Debian IV
Are release numbers really needed? Why not do away with them altogether?
--
Thomas Hood
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 10/07/05, Thomas Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 01:57:54 -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
I suggested Debian IV
Are release numbers really needed? Why not do away with them altogether?
--
Thomas Hood
you mean, just stick with code names?
That wouldn't exactly
Nigel Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 10/07/05, Thomas Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 01:57:54 -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
I suggested Debian IV
Are release numbers really needed? Why not do away with them altogether?
you mean, just stick with code names?
Nigel Jones wrote:
On 10/07/05, Thomas Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are release numbers really needed? Why not do away with them altogether?
you mean, just stick with code names?
That wouldn't exactly work, Debian's apt/dpkg basicly relies on
release numbers, how else can it easily and
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Thomas Hood wrote:
Are release numbers really needed? Why not do away with them altogether?
There are some strange people in the world who consider toy names
frivolous and not grown up. But they can be mollified with sober,
professional release numbers.
--
Jaldhar
Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
There are some strange people in the world who consider toy names
frivolous and not grown up. But they can be mollified with sober,
professional release numbers.
Another advantage is that numbers come in an order and thereby indicate
which release came before which.
On 08/07/05, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 11:57:25AM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote:
I'm already seeing documentation referring to Debian 3.2 (etch).
Where is this? It's certainly wrong for documentation to make assumptions
about the release version number at
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005, Nigel Jones wrote:
On 08/07/05, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 11:57:25AM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote:
I'm already seeing documentation referring to Debian 3.2 (etch).
Where is this? It's certainly wrong for documentation to make
On 20050708T181259-0400, Johan Kullstam wrote:
I've never understood the .X distinction anyway.
What signal is meant by 3.1 versus 4.0? Does your intended audience
have any concept of the distinction?
The usual distinction, when it is made, is that bumping the major number
indicates a
On 8.07.05, Drew Parsons wrote:
I'm already seeing documentation referring to Debian 3.2 (etch). Is
this really what we want?
It should be 3.14, followed by a 3.141 release. ;)
René
pgprBybtBBJri.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Drew Parsons wrote:
I suppose we should decide now if etch is going to be 3.2 or 4.0.
Given the ABI change with gcc-4.0 and the introduction of X.org, it
seems to me we have ample justification to introduce Debian 4.0.
We had an ABI change with Sarge as well. Also, there is not that much
Why not skip 4 all together and go straight to ...
Debian 2006 ( it can be released in 2008 though)
jokes ;-)
Bryan
On Friday 08 July 2005 09:15, René van Bevern wrote:
On 8.07.05, Drew Parsons wrote:
I'm already seeing documentation referring to Debian 3.2 (etch). Is
this really what
[Drew Parsons]
I remember some of us belatedly suggested sarge should be Debian 4.0,
though it was too late (May?) to accept that.
I suppose we should decide now if etch is going to be 3.2 or 4.0.
First of all, it was not only too late, the talk would have been
pointless anyway, like it is
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 11:57:25AM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote:
I'm already seeing documentation referring to Debian 3.2 (etch).
Where is this? It's certainly wrong for documentation to make assumptions
about the release version number at this point, and is the kind of thing
that makes it harder
On Fri, 2005-07-08 at 09:19 +0200, Bryan Gruneberg wrote:
Debian 2006 ( it can be released in 2008 though)
Debian 2006.0
:P
--
David Moreno Garza [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.damog.net/
If you want to make God laugh, tell him your future plans.
GPG: C671257D - 6EF6 C284 C95D 78F6 0B78
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 10:15:27PM -0700, Philippe Troin wrote:
Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 11:57:25AM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote:
I'm already seeing documentation referring to Debian 3.2 (etch). Is
this really what we want?
I remember
If Debian continues to use the Release When Ready strategy then I would
suggest that the number of the next release be its ordinal in the
historical sequence of releases, which is 9 by my reckoning (buzz, rex,
bo, hamm, slink, potato, woody, sarge, etch). I see no basis for
distinguishing some
Steve the deconstructionist wrote:
I'm already seeing documentation referring to Debian 3.2 (etch).
Where is this? It's certainly wrong for documentation to make assumptions
about the release version number at this point, and is the kind of thing
that makes it harder to change later.
It
Drew Parsons wrote:
It was the latest README in the new gcc-defaults. I imagine they
weren't trying to be presumptuous but were just using it as a place
holder. The document itself says it's not fully updated yet. One way or
another, it'll have to be changed to something. Maybe they'll get it
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 04:16:01PM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
If Debian simply _must_ have decimal points in its release numbers then
I'd suggest replacing the 'r' in update version numbers with '.'. Thus
9.1 would be the number of the first etch update.
As I remember, the original reason for
Philippe Troin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 11:57:25AM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote:
I'm already seeing documentation referring to Debian 3.2 (etch). Is
this really what we want?
I remember some of us belatedly suggested
On Fri 07/08/05 09:19, Bryan Gruneberg wrote:
jokes ;-)
Bryan
I think they should be versioned by the first number said by the
character their named after... so buzz should have been 4
--
--
| Josh Lauricha| Ford, you're
Drew Parsons [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm already seeing documentation referring to Debian 3.2 (etch). Is
this really what we want?
I remember some of us belatedly suggested sarge should be Debian 4.0,
though it was too late (May?) to accept that.
I suppose we should decide now if etch
I'm already seeing documentation referring to Debian 3.2 (etch). Is
this really what we want?
I remember some of us belatedly suggested sarge should be Debian 4.0,
though it was too late (May?) to accept that.
I suppose we should decide now if etch is going to be 3.2 or 4.0.
Given the ABI
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 11:57:25AM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote:
I'm already seeing documentation referring to Debian 3.2 (etch). Is
this really what we want?
I remember some of us belatedly suggested sarge should be Debian 4.0,
though it was too late (May?) to accept that.
I suppose we
Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 11:57:25AM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote:
I'm already seeing documentation referring to Debian 3.2 (etch). Is
this really what we want?
I remember some of us belatedly suggested sarge should be Debian 4.0,
though it was
30 matches
Mail list logo
