Re: Naming of new 2.0 release
*- Philip Hands wrote about "Re: Naming of new 2.0 release "
|
| Why are we arguing about this ?
|
| There seem to be only two positions on this subject:
|
| 1) There is no useful difference between 2.0.1 and 2.0 r1
|
| 2) It would be better to have 2.0 r? for marketing reasons
|
| both of which are satisfied by the 2.0 r1 solution.
|
| The only point of contention is whether it should be 2.0 r1 or 2.0 r2
|
| I think 2.0 r1, since the current version has an implied r0 IMHO,
| and anyway I'm a C programmer at heart, so start at 0 not 1.
|
Just another coal in the fire. Why not follow Debian's package
numbering scheme. Call the next release 2.0-2, since by default 2.0 is
2.0-1.
My $.02US.
--
Brian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Never criticize anybody until you have walked a mile in their shoes,
because by that time you will be a mile away and have their shoes."
- unknown
Mechanical Engineering servis@purdue.edu
Purdue University http://www.ecn.purdue.edu/~servis
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: