martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net> [2008.07.12.2321 +0200]:
>> I'm not sure sure that we want to have a hole in our versioning scheme.
>> Since "lenny+1/2" is just another stable update, let's just number it
>> like a stable update. So we don't end up with users thinking "You
>> released 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5. Where is 5.4 ?"
>
> True, but lenny+1/2 breaks with stable update rules (it contains new
> packages); the question is whether users care.

The other option is to have 5.0, 5.0.1, 5.0.2, 5.0.3, 5.1.0, where 5.1.0
is lenny+1/2.

That probably most accurately reflects what is really happening.

>
> Now that you make me think of it, I don't think they do, at all,
> especially not if lenny+1/2 only provides options beyond the
> standard stable-updates upgrades, no mandatory upgrades that go
> against those stable update rules.
>
> Comment added to http://doodle.ch/8zauai3nqges2ur8 . We can leave
> this discussion to another time, if there's anything to discuss.
>


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

* John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> [080714 17:38]:
> The other option is to have 5.0, 5.0.1, 5.0.2, 5.0.3, 5.1.0, where 5.1.0
> is lenny+1/2.
>
> That probably most accurately reflects what is really happening.

It also has the big advantage of using an already existing versioning
scheme, so less things to explain.

(It has the disadvantage that people might start to call point releases
patch-releases and "and a half" releases minor releases, but I think
that does not really hurt but even might be beneficial).

Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
"Never contain programs so few bugs, as when no debugging tools are available!"
Niklaus Wirth


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

also sprach John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> [2008.07.14.1701 +0200]:
> The other option is to have 5.0, 5.0.1, 5.0.2, 5.0.3, 5.1.0, where 5.1.0
> is lenny+1/2.

I note that replacing the second . with an r makes this converge
with the previous proposal to increment y only for stable updates
that add options.

--
.'`. martin f. krafft <madduck@debian.org>
: :' : proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user
`. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck - http://debiansystem.info
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems

"be the change you want to see in the world"
-- mahatma gandhi

On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 06:09:09PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> 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.

Looks consistent to me.

1.0-1.1-1.2-1.3
2.0-2.1-2.2
3.0-3.1
4.0

It does give a problem for 5 since by this pattern there can never be
another release so actually 5.0 doesn't fit. Oh dear.

> 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.
>
> lenny+0.5 would logically be 5.5, since it's unlikely that we will
> have five stable updates out within 1.5/2=0.75 years, and if we do,
> then lenny+0.5 is late.
>
> lenny+1 would be released as 6.0.
>
> This would add sense to our versioning scheme (and help avoid those
> discussions in the future).

Well releases are further apart than they once were, so perhaps a new
major every release makes sense.

> Instead of long flamewars and floods of AOL posts, I suggest you
> update http://doodle.ch/8zauai3nqges2ur8 if you're in favour or you
> oppose. You can use http://doodle.ch/syndication/8zauai3nqges2ur8 to
> track submissions.
>
> If you do have something to say, then reply.

Well hopefully I did say something.

--
Len Sorensen


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

On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 11:21:30PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I'm not sure sure that we want to have a hole in our versioning scheme.
> Since "lenny+1/2" is just another stable update, let's just number it
> like a stable update. So we don't end up with users thinking "You
> released 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5. Where is 5.4 ?"

Do VMware users complain about 6.0, 6.0.1, 6.0.2, 6.0.3, 6.0.4, 6.5,
etc? The .5 for them is a major update with some new features, but
still a free upgrade while the next .0 costs money. The half update is
bigger than normal revisions, so a jump in version number seems
perfectly reasonable there. Of course I don't see anything wrong with
the XrY style currently used either, although maybe some people find it
strange.

--
Len Sorensen


--
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:
> 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.

But .5 is a half isn't it?

--
Len Sorensen


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