Re: Naming of new 2.0 release
On Tue, 25 Aug 1998, Steve Lamb wrote:
: 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
: 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
: 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?
Have you read the freakin archives? I'd guess not.
MidcoNet 410 South Phillips Avenue Sioux Falls, SD
finger firstname.lastname@example.org for PGP Key: (0xA33B86E9)