On Mon, Aug 03, 1998 at 02:46:38AM -0700, George Bonser wrote:
> > Major versions for ONLY major changes, minors for minor, and
> > not entering the version-number-hype-marketing-bandwagon is
> > the hackers' view of version numbers.
>
> What constitutes a major change is fuzzy. I think it should be set in
> policy. 2.0 was a no-brainer since the libc change means all of the
> application packages would not run, by default, on the older revision but
> will Linux-2.2 or 3.0 or whatever it will be cause a 3.0 release or will
> it be a 2.??
I think you have a point here (or I'm tired reading all this crap
I'm writing :)), it could be decided generally what consists a minor
and what a major advance in the Debian World.
These guidelines could be written down... however I doubt you'll
successful seeing them, ever. There so much unforeseen possible
changes, we hardly can give more precise definitions like those
fuzzy terms "major change". (You could try, however. You have to
convince developers first, though, not users.)
So far it seems "major" involves changing _all_ packages.
Maybe kernel versions, if the system would change considerably
(as this seem to happen with 2.2.xx); these can be written down,
but not much more.
bests,
grin
=============================+===============================================
Peter "grin" Gervai | "It was like a visit by Don Corleone. I
Linux root at Cory-Net Ltd. | expected to find a bloody computer monitor in
Szekszard, Hungary | my bed the next day." -- Mark Andreessen of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on #linux.hu | Netscape regarding the visit from
microsoft.
--
Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
