Re: Expelling David Cinege from the list
On Aug 22, Dave Cinege wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Aug 1997 15:19:59 -0800 (AKDT), Britton wrote:
> >2. Changing the version numbering is bad.
> >He's right about this. There was no reason to do it, and it looks like a
> >pacification move toward vendors that functions by decieving (or at least
> >misleading) end users. This is in direct conflict with Debian's official
> >policy of 'not hiding problems'. At least one CD vendor has already
> >agreed with him on this in this thread.
Nothing will be hidden. The revisions are changed within *minor* bug fixes.
The point numbers are changed within *major* changes. So the new numbering
scheme helps to indicate what sort of changes were made.
> It's not just that. I really do like the x.x.x way of numbering. It's linux-centric and
> IMHO the right way to do it. But I can live with something else. What I can not deal
> with is making modifications to a frozen revision, and not changing the rev number.
> (especially just to make some CD maker happy)
> This has been my (violent) argument over the last few days. I think most people
> have been missing it, and think I'm just going crazy because it's going to be called
> 1.3 R2 instead of 1.3.2. This is not the case.
But if you write this, then please say that it was clarified as a *mistake*
by the persons who did this. Please stop to imply that this was done with
the goal to hide changes. It was a mistake, made by volunteers that have a
lot of work and do this in their spare time. You had your point, the
responsible persons got it, and I saw several messages stating that this bug
will be fixed in time.
Still not satisfied? My backlog of this thread is far over 500kByte by
"Rhubarb is no Egyptian god."
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .