Subject: Release on Monday

From: [email-masked] (Bruce Perens)
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 96 21:42 PDT

I want to look into the reported problem of the installation system
configuring the network number incorrectly (probably pilot error) and
the reported problem of "dselect" not working on CDs or mounted disks
and then it's release time.

There are a lot of things I would have liked to get right in 1.1 that
didn't happen, but I think we have reason to be very proud of this
release. Let's get it over with and get to work on 1.2 .

	Thanks

	Bruce

---

From: [email-masked] (Erick Branderhorst)
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 14:54:27 +0100

> Ok, but i would say: let's skip version numbers and go to 2.x!
What is in a name or a number. This sounds very much Mikro.... like.

Erick

---

From: Dominik Kubla <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 15:43:37 +0200

>>>>> Bruce Perens writes:

> There are a lot of things I would have liked to get right in 1.1
> that didn't happen, but I think we have reason to be very proud of
> this release. Let's get it over with and get to work on 1.2 .

Reasons:
- Debian is mature enough and a version number of 1.2 looks inferior
  to Slackware 3.x or Red Hat 3.x
- Let's tie the debian release number to the kernel release number,
  meaning Linux 2.0 -> Debian 2.0, Linux 2.1 -> Debian 2.1 and so on.
  If we want Debian to become a standard distribution, that is the way
  to go.

Dominik
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Visit the FAN SITE of the WORLD LEAGUE OF AMERICAN FOOTBALL:
<A HREF="http://www.uni-mainz.de/~kubla/WLAF/Welcome.html>HTTP</A> or
<A HREF="file:/afs/zdv.uni-mainz.de/homes/UFO/kubla/public_html/WLAF/Welcome.html">AFS file</A> access.

---

From: Scott Barker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 08:52:21 -0600 (MDT)

> and then it's release time.

After release time, will the contents of the 'buzz' directory be frozen? And
all updates put into the 'unstable' directory? Or will 'buzz' be updated as
updated packages become available?

-- 
Scott Barker
Linux Consultant
[email-masked]
http://www.cuug.ab.ca:8001/~barkers/   (under construction)

[ I try to reply to all e-mail within 5 days. If you don't  ]
[ get a response by then, I probably didn't get your e-mail ]
[ (we have a sometimes sporadic connection to the internet) ]

"There is hopeful symbolism in the fact that flags do not wave in a vacuum."
   - Arthur C. Clarke

---

From: [email-masked] (Emilio Lopes)
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 96 13:07 EST

>>>>> "DK" == Dominik Kubla <[email-masked]> wrote:

DK> Ok, but i would say: let's skip version numbers and go to 2.x!

DK> Reasons: - Debian is mature enough and a version number of 1.2
DK> looks inferior to Slackware 3.x or Red Hat 3.x 

Maybe we should do the same thing that M$ did when it released Word 3
as Word 6, just because its concurrent (WordPerfect) were at a higher
version numbering... 

And what about Intel that called the DX4 "DX4" when it should be "DX3"?

What about Debian 4? Users would love this.

-- 
 Emilio C. Lopes <mailto:[email-masked]>
 FINPE, Instituto de Fisica      E-mail: [email-masked]
 Universidade de Sao Paulo       Phone : (+55 11) 818-6724 (Voice)
 Caixa Postal 66318                      (+55 11) 818-6715 (Fax)
 05389-970  Sao Paulo - SP
 BRAZIL

---

From: Mike Orr <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 09:14:21 -0700 (PDT)

On Thu, 13 Jun 1996, Dominik Kubla wrote:

> ... let's skip version numbers and go to 2.x!
> 
> Reasons:

Hmm, does it really?  A high version number can also make it look like
there was major things wrong/missing with the earlier versions.  If we
stick to Bruce's schedule of releasing a new stable version every three
months, we'll be up to version 10 in two years. 

I prefer the "major-minor" method of numbering releases.

************ MIKE ORR <[email-masked]> *************
*      * 1405 NE 56th Street, Seattle, WA 98105 USA *      *
*      * (206) 522-9627, fax 328-6209               *      * 
*      * http://weber.u.washington.edu/~vielo/      *      *     
*      * english/russki/esperanto/deutsch/espanol.  *      *
********    ===> Insert silly quote here. <===      ********

---

From: Lars Wirzenius <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 20:17:50 +0300

> I prefer the "major-minor" method of numbering releases.

Ditto.  A suggestion: bump the major version when something really big
changes.  Such as when Debian becomes stable on several architectures.

---

From: Dominik Kubla <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 14:52:44 +0200

>>>>> I wrote:

> Ok, but i would say: let's skip version numbers and go to 2.x!

Ok, if you all think it's better to keep it as it is right now, that's
fine with me.  I just thought it to be a good idea - apparently it was
not...

Dominik

---

From: Kevin Dalley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 07:56:25 -0700

I think that there is risk of people interpreting Debian-1.1 as being
behind 2.x and 3.x from another provider.  We shouldn't worry about it
for this release, but we should keep this concern in mind and
determine whether there are many misinterpretations.

kevin

---

From: [email-masked] (Karl Ferguson)
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 23:26:07 +0800 (WST)

> determine whether there are many misinterpretations.

I honestly don't see why we have to update our version numbers to beat the
rest of the pack.  The way I see it we should have a two sets of version
numbers standing for minor and major releases.

For example, Debian-1.1 is updated from 0.93R6 because is had major changes
(ELF conversion etc).  The next version should be 1.2 because I doubt that
anything "big" will happen.  If it does, then it should be 2.0 if you get
my drift.

As for being behind the pack, I don't see why.  Updating versions can also
mean that there is something terribly wrong with that distribution.  I
think the way we're going now is spot-on, but, that's just my opinion.

...Karl
--
Karl Ferguson, 
Tower Networking Pty Ltd (ACN: 072 322 760)          [email-masked]
t/a STAR Online Services                             [email-masked]
Tel: +61-9-455-2446  Fax: +61-9-455-2776