Re: Naming of new 2.0 release
On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 23:24:28 -0500 (CDT), Nathan E Norman wrote:
>points out, the current scheme is in place, so why argue it all out
>again?
Because it is wrong.
What happens when the "average joe" reads the fine print and realizes
that 2.0 and 2.0r1 and 2.0r2 still have an incrimenting number at the end and
the second dot has changed to an r? The same thing. What will we do then,
start using other letters of the alphabet? Reverse the scheme (no, this is
3r0.2!)?
Start using letters (version c.a.c!).
The fact of the matter is no matter how it is packaged the the changes
are there and joe public will percieve those changes and take what they
percieve as the latest release.
With that in mind, why, then, continue with a practice which is contrary
to every other version numbering scheme save for Microsoft's and a few other
companies who hide their releases. Are we now hiding ours?
--
Steve C. Lamb | Opinions expressed by me are not my
http://www.calweb.com/~morpheus | employer's. They hired me for my
ICQ: 5107343 | skills and labor, not my opinions!
---------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reply to: