Re: Naming of new 2.0 release
Martin Schulze writes:
> The problem of increasing the version number such as releasing 2.0.1 and
> 2.0.2 is that many people, vendors, book stores etc. will think that this
> is a completely new version of Debian and the "old" ond is obsolete.
It is.
> This will make it impossible for CD vendors to sell the distribution
> since it will be "hopelessly" outdated when his cd's visit the market.
> As a result this will make it difficult for many poeple to use Debian
> since the CD vendors can't press cd's because nobody[2] would buy them.
What is the lead time on having CD's pressed? Do the vendors keep large
inventories? Has anyone asked the vendors about this? A point release
might actually help sales.
> Therefore I *strongly* object against calling the upcoming release
> 2.0.1. We really, really should call it 2.0 r1 instead. Yes, this
> is a big difference.
Why do you think that someone who won't buy 2.0 because 2.0.1 is out will
buy 2.0 when 2.0 r1 is out? In either case it is obvious that a newer
version is available.
> We really, really should call it 2.0 r1 instead. Yes, this is a big
> difference.
It is a meaningless difference.
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
Reply to: