Re: Naming of new 2.0 release
Yes I fail to see the diffrentence between 2.0.1 and 2.0 r1 too, dosn't
solve any problems at all.
On Mon, 24 Aug 1998 email@example.com wrote:
> 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 is a completely new version of Debian and the "old" ond is obsolete.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 since it will be "hopelessly" outdated when his cd's visit the market.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 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
> firstname.lastname@example.org (John Hasler)
> Dancing Horse Hill
> Elmwood, WI
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org