When I refer to Debian releases, I try to always mention both the version number and code name. For example, "Debian 42.0 (green army man number 17)". Different people remember one or the other and mentioning both is as clear as I can be about this.
I also personally got quite lost between "buster", "bullseye", and "bookworm", and their order.
I was not fond of having several releases in a row start with the same letter.
@liw Versioning and code names are the one single thing Ubuntu ever did better than Debian.
@liw Such code names are often confusing. Also Yocto kernel names are painful; code names may be useful but they should be picked so that their sorting order matches the release order.
@liw
You can drop the 'personally' part in that last sentence. Not only were you not alone in that, I have yet to find a person who *is* able to tell them apart without looking up the details, myself included.
You can drop the 'personally' part in that last sentence. Not only were you not alone in that, I have yet to find a person who *is* able to tell them apart without looking up the details, myself included.
- replies
- 0
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 0
@liw the triple-b releases broke my brain so much I often wonder if the release team had intended them to. At the very least I’d like Debian to move to leading with the version as you illustrate, in all official docs and communications.