martin f krafft wrote: > 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. :)
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
