Re: Naming of new 2.0 release
On Tue, Aug 25, 1998 at 11:12:59AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> 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.
Not exactly compelling but...
Notice that as a rule, debian packages with new upstream versions get
released as -1. Something version 0.x is implied to be buggy, and
untrusted - which even if the CD images are, we probably don't want to
label them. I think that calling the second image r2 would be
significantly less confusing; after all, it is the 2nd release.