Re: Naming of new 2.0 release
> 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'?
> We seem to be doing this for the silver vendors. Has anyone asked them
> what they want?
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.
Unless someone comes up with a compelling counterargument, I'll be putting
the next CD release in a directory called: