also sprach Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' : 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 heißt nicht wissen wollen, was wahr ist." - friedrich nietzsche
digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)
