[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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
 : >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?

Have you read the freakin archives?  I'd guess not.

Nathan Norman
MidcoNet  410 South Phillips Avenue  Sioux Falls, SD
mailto:finn@midco.net           http://www.midco.net
finger finn@home.midco.net for PGP Key: (0xA33B86E9)

Reply to: