[Mageia-dev] [Mageia-sysadm] [496] update version in Makefile

Thu Feb 10 22:17:51 CET 2011

В сообщении от Пятница 11 февраля 2011 00:08:07 автор Maarten Vanraes написал:
+> Op donderdag 10 februari 2011 21:32:37 schreef Dexter Morgan:
+> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Maarten Vanraes
+> > 
+> > <maarten.vanraes at gmail.com> wrote:
+> > > Op donderdag 10 februari 2011 19:57:08 schreef Dexter Morgan:
+> > >> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 7:35 PM, Maarten Vanraes
+> > >> 
+> > >> <maarten.vanraes at gmail.com> wrote:
+> > >> > Op donderdag 10 februari 2011 10:34:48 schreef Samuel Verschelde:
+> > >> >> Le jeudi 10 février 2011 10:15:59, Thierry Vignaud a écrit :
+> > >> >> > On 9 February 2011 21:52,  <root at mageia.org> wrote:
+> > >> >> > > update version in Makefile
+> > >> >> > > 
+> > >> >> > > Modified Paths
+> > >> >> > > 
+> > >> >> > > drakx/trunk/advertising/Makefile
+> > >> >> > > 
+> > >> >> > > Modified: drakx/trunk/advertising/Makefile
+> > >> >> > > ===============================================================
+> > >> >> > > == == --- drakx/trunk/advertising/Makefile      2011-02-09
+> > >> >> > > 20:24:08 UTC (rev 495) +++ drakx/trunk/advertising/Makefile
+> > >> >> > > 
+> > >> >> > >  2011-02-09 20:52:01 UTC (rev 496) @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
+> > >> >> > > 
+> > >> >> > > -VERSION = 2011.0
+> > >> >> > > +VERSION = 1
+> > >> >> > > 
+> > >> >> > >  PRODUCT = drakx-installer-advertising
+> > >> >> > 
+> > >> >> > I don't know if that has already been discussed somewhere (at
+> > >> >> > least I didn't remember it), since the "year.month" scheme is
+> > >> >> > widely used (mandriva, ubuntu, phoronix, ...), why not stick
+> > >> >> > with it?
+> > >> >> > 
+> > >> >> > on the other hand, "traditionnal" versioning is used by FC,
+> > >> >> > Debian so I don't have strong opinion about any of these.
+> > >> >> > WDYT?
+> > >> >> 
+> > >> >> I saw no public discussion about it (maybe in a meeting for which I
+> > >> >> didn't read the logs). I like having the year in release version,
+> > >> >> but I infered from what I saw that version 1 seems to be what has
+> > >> >> been chosen. However, that may be to late to discuss since the
+> > >> >> alpha is due in 5 days from now.
+> > >> >> 
+> > >> >> Samuel
+> > >> > 
+> > >> > i was under the opinion that people said "Release 1" as a temporary
+> > >> > measure, until the discussion had been settled...
+> > >> > 
+> > >> > i too prefer the year in the release, makes it easier to remember.
+> > >> 
+> > >> i hardly see how this is easier to remember.
+> > >> I really like the way fedora does F14, F15, ...
+> > >> 
+> > >> 
+> > >> but this is just my opinion :)
+> > > 
+> > > well, tbf, will it be ok to have F143 in the future? it seems a bit ...
+> > > languish ... to me.
+> > 
+> > and mageia 3501.1 is something better ? :)
+> > 
+> > come on  you have just personnal feeling here not something with
+> > arguments.
+> 
+> if we're in the year 3501, then yes easier to remember.
+> 
+> but indeed, this is all personal feelings and it has no arguments, except
+> that the current or last X years are easier to remember , rather then an
+> abitrary number.
+For a people who are not familiar with disto year/month model is more usefull, 
+cause its easier to understand how recent is this version, rather then 
+"version 4" that does not talks. If you haven't heard about Alt Linux than 
+what can you say about Alt 5? How much time passed since it was released?
+
+In other words, IMHO Mageia 2011.2 is more user-friendly type of name.
+-- 
+Vyacheslav Blinov aka Dant3/Dante
+