I think that the versioning scheme needs to take into account the
possible implementation of Joey Hess' CUT (Constantly Usable Testing)
idea. I'd suggest 6.X would be CUT releases of lenny+1 and 6.0rY would
be stable updates.

Anyway, lets leave it up to the RMs to paint names and numbers on the bikeshed.

--
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Paul Wise wrote:
> I think that the versioning scheme needs to take into account the
> possible implementation of Joey Hess' CUT (Constantly Usable Testing)
> idea. I'd suggest 6.X would be CUT releases of lenny+1 and 6.0rY would
> be stable updates.

Surely those would be 7.0~<some_ID> ;-)

> Anyway, lets leave it up to the RMs to paint names and numbers on the
> bikeshed.

Agreed.

Also, I really dislike the "use .5 for -and-a-half releases" in the
original proposal. For one thing you cannot exclude the risk that 5 point
releases would be needed for one reason or another before an +1/2
release. And it also makes it impossible to distinguish between
the "regular point update" part of such a release and the "+1/2" part.

Finally, a new scheme would also need to provide for "CD image rebuilds"
shortly after a release as has happened in the past.
See for example "3.1 rev6a" on http://www.debian.org/CD/releases/.

Cheers,
FJP

la, 2008-07-12 kello 18:09 +0200, martin f krafft kirjoitti:
> So lenny will be Debian 5.0. Many people have questioned this
> choice, given how we onconsistently went ...-2.0-2.1-2.2-3.0-3.1-4.0
> in the last decade, but it's the RM's choice and not to be debated.
>
> What is to be debated is how to move on from here.
>
> I propose that we get rid of our r-releases and simply let the first
> stable update to lenny be 5.1, followed by 5.2, and so on.

If I remember correctly, we adopted the rX way of versioning to appease
CD-ROM vendors: they did not like us releasing X.Y+1 as a stable update
since that meant their X.Y boxes looked out of date, even though the
boxes were perfectly fine, and could easily be updated to X.Y+1 via the
net.

Do we still care about that?



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 07:46:54AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> Paul Wise wrote:
> > I think that the versioning scheme needs to take into account the
> > possible implementation of Joey Hess' CUT (Constantly Usable Testing)
> > idea. I'd suggest 6.X would be CUT releases of lenny+1 and 6.0rY would
> > be stable updates.
>
> Surely those would be 7.0~<some_ID> ;-)

Sure, that will be endless fun to explain to users

Gruesse,
--
Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org>
www: http://www.djpig.de/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 01:51:55AM +0200, Franklin PIAT wrote:
> I can think of five types of releases :
>
> 1. Quite incompatible release, like libc5 to libc6 transition.
> 2a. Scheduled release. Which purpose is to update software, fix
> medium bugs, improve hardware support, etc.
> ??? (i.e Debian Stable !)
> 2b. Some kind of updates where only End-user ???software-update
> would be updated, but not the core libraries.
> In the proprietary software industry, it can be considered as
> installing a new version of a user application.
> Debian don't have such release (actually we could consider
> backport to be this kind of thing).
> 3. Hardware support improvements (e.g Etch-n-a-half)
> 4. Stability and security improvements (e.g point releases)
>
> In my perfect world, the major number would be for #1 only. But since
> this rule wasn't followed since woody 3.0 so it's too late and we
> can't
> switch back.

On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 07:46:54AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> Paul Wise wrote:
> > I think that the versioning scheme needs to take into account the
> > possible implementation of Joey Hess' CUT (Constantly Usable Testing)
> > idea. I'd suggest 6.X would be CUT releases of lenny+1 and 6.0rY would
> > be stable updates.
>
> Surely those would be 7.0~<some_ID> ;-)

Combining the above two comments, I think lenny's release number should
be reassigned to 1:2.6.


Michael


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On lördagen den 12 juli 2008, martin f krafft wrote:
> lenny+0.5 would logically be 5.5

Version strings are *not* floating-point numbers (i.e. e.g. 5.10 follows 5.9).
At least that's the school of thought Debian (dpkg --compare-versions)
subscribes to with regard to packages.

--
Magnus Holmgren holmgren@debian.org
Debian Developer

Magnus Holmgren <holmgren@debian.org> writes:

> On lördagen den 12 juli 2008, martin f krafft wrote:
> > lenny+0.5 would logically be 5.5
>
> Version strings are *not* floating-point numbers (i.e. e.g. 5.10
> follows 5.9).

Exactly. More specifically, a numbers-with-periods version string
represents a sequence of integers in a hierarchical relationship (e.g.
"major", "minor", "patch", or other meanings), *not* a single number
on a number line.

--
“Holy unrefillable prescriptions, Batman!� —Robin |
` |
_o__) |
Ben Finney


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Am Sonntag 13 Juli 2008 schrieb Frans Pop:
> Also, I really dislike the "use .5 for -and-a-half releases" in the
> original proposal. For one thing you cannot exclude the risk that 5
> point releases would be needed for one reason or another before an
> +1/2 release. And it also makes it impossible to distinguish between
> the "regular point update" part of such a release and the "+1/2"
> part.

Agreed. 1/2 could also mean "1 of 2", and .5 name the fifth subversion.
Decimal systems are very modern, while time is still counting in a
duodecimal manner (12 are a dozen, 60 are a schock:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Schock)

The same way, we could call pre-releases "5 [minutes] to Lenny".

Of course, I like the creativeness of leaving the limits of integers
(Reminding me to Platform 9 3/4 in Harry Potter). After 3.0 and 3.1 -
has there ever been a PI-Version of Debian BTW?

Just my 2 cent of smalltalk in this thread.
Thanks
Ralf


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Lars Wirzenius <liw@liw.fi> writes:

> If I remember correctly, we adopted the rX way of versioning to appease
> CD-ROM vendors: they did not like us releasing X.Y+1 as a stable update
> since that meant their X.Y boxes looked out of date, even though the
> boxes were perfectly fine, and could easily be updated to X.Y+1 via the
> net.
>
> Do we still care about that?

To me, this argues for continuing to use 5.0r1, 5.0r2, and so forth for
stable updates and using 5.1 for the -and-a-half release, with 5.1r1,
5.1r2, and so forth for additional stable releases based on it. That
means we'd probably never use 5.2, but it follows the versioning that
makes sense for CD-ROM vendors. The -and-a-half release *does* make their
CDs potentially out of date since the -and-a-half release may be able to
install on hardware that the original release can't.

--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Sun,13.Jul.08, 11:45:46, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Lars Wirzenius <liw@liw.fi> writes:
>
> > If I remember correctly, we adopted the rX way of versioning to appease
> > CD-ROM vendors: they did not like us releasing X.Y+1 as a stable update
> > since that meant their X.Y boxes looked out of date, even though the
> > boxes were perfectly fine, and could easily be updated to X.Y+1 via the
> > net.
> >
> > Do we still care about that?
>
> To me, this argues for continuing to use 5.0r1, 5.0r2, and so forth for
> stable updates and using 5.1 for the -and-a-half release, with 5.1r1,
> 5.1r2, and so forth for additional stable releases based on it. That
> means we'd probably never use 5.2, but it follows the versioning that
> makes sense for CD-ROM vendors. The -and-a-half release *does* make their
> CDs potentially out of date since the -and-a-half release may be able to
> install on hardware that the original release can't.

That would be true if there was an updated etch installer, which is not
the case (one has to use the lenny beta 2 installer to install
etch-and-a-half directly) now. Maybe lenny-and-a-half will also have an
updated installer?

Regards,
Andrei
--
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
(Albert Einstein)