FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 07-12-2008, 04:09 PM
martin f krafft
 
Default Debian release versioning

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.

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).

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.

--
.'`. 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

beauty, brains, availability, personality; pick any two.
 
Old 07-12-2008, 09:21 PM
Lucas Nussbaum
 
Default Debian release versioning

On 12/07/08 at 18:09 +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.
>
> 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.

ACK

> 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.

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 ?"
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 07-12-2008, 09:41 PM
Gunnar Wolf
 
Default Debian release versioning

Lucas Nussbaum dijo [Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 11:21:30PM +0200]:
> > 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.
>
> 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 ?"

1. The RMs are right

2. The DDs decided to trust the RMs.

3. There is no number 3.

4. Our priorities are our users and Free Software.

--
Gunnar Wolf - gwolf@gwolf.org - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244
PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23
Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 07-12-2008, 09:45 PM
martin f krafft
 
Default Debian release versioning

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.

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.

--
.'`. 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

"glaube hei▀t nicht wissen wollen, was wahr ist."
- friedrich nietzsche
 
Old 07-12-2008, 09:45 PM
Adeodato Simˇ
 
Default Debian release versioning

* martin f krafft [Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:09:09 +0200]:

> 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.

I really, really dislike this part. Decimals have always meant a
completely different release, and I'd rather not change their meaning
now. (Plus in free software parlance, the second integer normally means
new features, not just bugfixes.)

We could do the "bump integer for each release" that you suggest, always
releasing at .0. And consistently give the "and a half" releases the .1.

For example: Lenny 5.0, then 5.0r1 and 5.0r2, then "Lenny and a half" 5.1,
followed by 5.1r1, etc. if needed.

--
Adeodato Simˇ dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org

Listening to: Fangoria - En el cielo


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 07-12-2008, 10:01 PM
Gunnar Wolf
 
Default Debian release versioning

martin f krafft dijo [Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 06:09:09PM +0200]:
> 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.
> (...)
> 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.

I... Will reply ;-)

I like your idea, in general terms. Yes, it is a break from our
traditional numbering scheme - but that's something that every other
distribution has done at some point in time (i.e. Slackware 7 after
4.0 [1] "because most other distributions are at or near 7", or RedHat
5 -> 6 -> 7 -> 8 -> 9 ->RHEL 1 -> 2 -> 3 just because "enterprisey" is
"different" [2]).

People to who I gave Etch 4.0 DVDs still ask me for Etch 4.0r2 DVDs,
even after hearing they are basically the same stuff... So there is no
real way newcomers will understand our stable versions don't change
besides seucrity and similar fixes. Similarly, only yesterday another
friend asked me whether he should use Debian 5.0 Beta 2 [3, 4]... So,
non-involved users will always require clarification.

Greetings,

[1] http://www.jeepster.org.uk/history.html

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat_Linux#Version_history

[3] http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/News/2008/20080609

[4] http://gwolf.org/node/1831

--
Gunnar Wolf - gwolf@gwolf.org - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244
PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23
Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 07-12-2008, 10:21 PM
Allan Wind
 
Default Debian release versioning

On 2008-07-12T23:45:29+0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> True, but lenny+1/2 breaks with stable update rules (it contains new
> packages); the question is whether users care.

There more than one cluster of users, and there are other stakeholders
such as derived distributions.

I ran testing and at times unstable on a machine that was shared between
myself and my spouse.

It worked great for me as I had current libraries and applications.
Rarely did anything break, and when they did someone usually had a
ticket filed on it before I got it. Defects were usually fixed quickly
as both the debian maintainer and upstream developer(s) cared about the
current version of their package.

The constant change was very frustrating for my spouse though, and when
something broke she was dead in the water. To her using anything but
stable made things unreliable with no upside.

And I bet there are clusters of users that are interesting in only
certain packages being cutting edge, and the rest stable would do just
fine. For a developer the cutting edge may be your editor and compiler.
For the database administrator the key may be having all the databases
and versions of databases installed etc.


/Allan


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 07-12-2008, 11:51 PM
Franklin PIAT
 
Default Debian release versioning

Hello,

On Sat, 2008-07-12 at 22:45 +0100, Adeodato Sim├│ wrote:
> * martin f krafft [Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:09:09 +0200]:
> > 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.

Also, ´╗┐madduck posted that comment on doodle (Saturday, July 12, 2008) :

> ´╗┐> whether lenny+1/2 should be named 5.5 or 5.3, if 5.2 was the last
> > stable update, is not part of this vote. This vote is just stable
> > releases are distinguished with X and every stable update gets a
> > new Y.

First of all, I don't think we can work on the different numbering
scheme independently.


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.

The idea to bump the integer part for each release looks like a good
idea ´╗┐(which would be consistent with our recent releases numbering,
except sarge).
´╗┐
> I really, really dislike this part. Decimals have always meant a
> completely different release, and I'd rather not change their meaning
> now. (Plus in free software parlance, the second integer normally means
> new features, not just bugfixes.)

I also completely disagree with the idea of using 6.1 for lenny+1's
first point release. Everyone on this planet expect to get new features
and new bugs in a decimal release (read [1]).
Using 6.1 for our point release would cause user deception. Please don't
advocate this.
If one don't like the "r" numbering (because one think users could be
confused with "alpha", "beta", "rc"...) then we could switch back to
numbers like 1.3.1 (but again read [1]).

> We could do the "bump integer for each release" that you suggest, always
> releasing at .0. And consistently give the "and a half" releases the .1.
>
> For example: Lenny 5.0, then 5.0r1 and 5.0r2, then "Lenny and a half" 5.1,
> followed by 5.1r1, etc. if needed.

At first I also considered 6.5 for Lenny-and-a-half, but since we might
have a "Lenny-and-two-third" or Lenny+Backport so I don't consider it a
good idea. I like ´╗┐Adeodato's 6.1 (alternatively we could use 6.0.10)

Franklin


[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1998/08/msg01581.html


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 07-13-2008, 12:26 AM
Stephen Gran
 
Default Debian release versioning

This one time, at band camp, Gunnar Wolf said:
> Lucas Nussbaum dijo [Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 11:21:30PM +0200]:
> > > 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.
> >
> > 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 ?"
>
> 1. The RMs are right
>
> 2. The DDs decided to trust the RMs.
>
> 3. There is no number 3.
>
> 4. Our priorities are our users and Free Software.

+1

<insert flame about number 4>


--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| ,'`. Stephen Gran |
| : :' : sgran@debian.org |
| `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer |
| `- http://www.debian.org |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 
Old 07-13-2008, 02:36 AM
Ben Finney
 
Default Debian release versioning

Franklin PIAT <fpiat@bigfoot.com> writes:

> The idea to bump the integer part for each release looks like a good
> idea (which would be consistent with our recent releases numbering,
> except sarge).

Note that *all* the numeric parts of the version number are integers.
That they are separated by a period doesn't make it a single number;
it makes it a sequence of integers separated by periods.

--
ÔÇťCreativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as |
` society is free to use the results.ÔÇŁ ÔÇöRichard Stallman |
_o__) |
Ben Finney


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

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:09 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ę2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org