Posted by: Anonymous
[ip: 81.241.250.213]
on June 08, 2008 10:18 AM
I agree with Bruce: If you don't follow the projects closely, it is impossible to know what is a stable or unstable version, how big a change was implemented compared to the previous version, how far away a new major release is.
Examples:
The switch from linux 2.4 to 2.6 was a major change in the kernel but a rather small change in the version number.
From Debian Woody (3.0) to Sarge (3.1) it took 5(?) years, and the new release whas much different from the previous one (if I remember correctly Gnome was updated from 1.4 in Debian 3.0 to 2.20 in Debian 3.1). Nevertheless, the number suggests it was only a minor upgrade.
Then there are the funny questions like: What comes after a version 1.9? In some project the number is seen as decimal so 2.0 would be next. Others interpret the digits completely separately, so 1.10 would be next.
There are many more examples, where the numbering schemes between different projects are absolutely not comparable.
This is o.k.: Every project must decide by itself, how they want ot number - but for people not following the indiviudal schemes closely, the numbering then is quite irrelevant. And this is what the original poster wanted to point out.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Version labeling is out of control
Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 81.241.250.213] on June 08, 2008 10:18 AMExamples:
The switch from linux 2.4 to 2.6 was a major change in the kernel but a rather small change in the version number.
From Debian Woody (3.0) to Sarge (3.1) it took 5(?) years, and the new release whas much different from the previous one (if I remember correctly Gnome was updated from 1.4 in Debian 3.0 to 2.20 in Debian 3.1). Nevertheless, the number suggests it was only a minor upgrade.
Then there are the funny questions like: What comes after a version 1.9? In some project the number is seen as decimal so 2.0 would be next. Others interpret the digits completely separately, so 1.10 would be next.
There are many more examples, where the numbering schemes between different projects are absolutely not comparable.
This is o.k.: Every project must decide by itself, how they want ot number - but for people not following the indiviudal schemes closely, the numbering then is quite irrelevant. And this is what the original poster wanted to point out.
#