[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Release numbers [was Re: CG chapter 2, first draft]
From: |
John Mandereau |
Subject: |
Re: Release numbers [was Re: CG chapter 2, first draft] |
Date: |
Tue, 12 Jan 2010 16:29:11 +0100 |
Le mardi 12 janvier 2010 à 14:49 +0000, Graham Percival a écrit :
> For unstable, yes. But they're not all that cheap for stable -- I
> mean, I'd expect many users to update to a new stable version. But
> there's absolutely no functional difference between 2.12.3 and the
> hypothetical 2.12.4. The only difference is in the source, doc, and
> web doc.
This is true, but version numbers (excluding the release number added by
GUB) are not only intended for users: package maintainers may want to
see that the source package changes, which won't happen if you release a
2.12.3-2. And I wouldn't care about requesting users to update as long
as they know through the release announcement and/or a news item that
only the docs translations change from their point of view.
Best,
John
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
- Re: CG chapter 2, first draft, (continued)
- Re: CG chapter 2, first draft, Trevor Daniels, 2010/01/13
- Re: CG chapter 2, first draft, John Mandereau, 2010/01/13
- Re: CG chapter 2, first draft, Trevor Daniels, 2010/01/13
Re: CG chapter 2, first draft, Graham Percival, 2010/01/12
Re: CG chapter 2, first draft, Graham Percival, 2010/01/12
Re: CG chapter 2, first draft, Mark Polesky, 2010/01/11
Re: CG chapter 2, first draft, Graham Percival, 2010/01/13
- Re: CG chapter 2, first draft, John Mandereau, 2010/01/13
- Re: CG chapter 2, first draft, Trevor Daniels, 2010/01/13
- Re: CG chapter 2, first draft, Graham Percival, 2010/01/13
- Re: CG chapter 2, first draft, Mark Polesky, 2010/01/14