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

Re: Naming of new 2.0 release

On Wed, Aug 26, 1998 at 12:11:29PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> When a new customer says, "Do you have the latest release of Debian?", the
> vendor can say, "Yes, we have the 2.0 release of Debian.". The vendor
> doesn't have to "keep up" with which point release has just been made, or
> is about to be made. When it comes time to burn some more stock, the
> vendor's tech support gets the latest revision and burns it with fair
> chance of selling them.

    In short, deception.  If I call up and ask "Do you have the latest
release of Debian?" and mean "2.0.2/2.0r2" and he says, "Yes, we do have the
latest release of Devian!" and means 2.0, then he is wrong.  Plain and
simple, he is wrong and the customer has been deceived.

> I might ask, "How does returning to the old point release method improve
> anything?". We already know that it is a problem for someone, even if they
> aren't a developer or user, so why make the situation worse?

    It improves because there is not deception involved.  It improves
because when joe blow learns that 2.0r2 is the same as 2.0.2 and we have to
change it *AGAIN* to maintain the deception we lose out again.  

    Changing a standard for marketing reasons, and yes, I consider
(major).(minor).<REVISION!> a standard, is not the way to solve the problem. 
There have been several other GOOD suggestions put forth.  Personally, I'd
just readjust the release schedule to allow them more time to sell the older
stock if there really is a problem.

             Steve C. Lamb             | Opinions expressed by me are not my
    http://www.calweb.com/~morpheus    | employer's.  They hired me for my
CC: from news not wanted or appreciated| skills and labor, not my opinions!

Reply to: