Re: Naming of new 2.0 release

[Martin Schulze <joey@kuolema.Infodrom.North.DE>]

john@dhh.gt.org wrote:
> Johnie Ingram writes:
> > It isn't -- the difference is a handful of packages, instead of
> > practically every one as with a full release.
> 
> I thought that difference was security bug fixes and corrections to
> autoup.sh and some of the install stuff.  If there are no important changes
> why make a release at all?
> 
> > The CD vendors can continue to sell 2.0 with a clear concience because
> > the apt upgrade to 2.0 r2 is quick and painless.
> 
> And this all due to replacing '.' with 'r'?

Yes.  The 'r' implies that this is not a completely new release but
only a sub-release.  People don't have to worry about updating it
over the net since only few things have changed.

> We seem to be doing this for the silver vendors.  Has anyone asked them
> what they want?

No, we are doing this for the users who depend on silver vendors.  If
we want to reach users we can't ignore silver vendors.  If we do, we're
in a mess like with 1.2 etc.

Regards,

	Joey

-- 
A mathematician is a machine for converting coffee into theorems.