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

Re: Naming of new 2.0 release

On Wed, 26 Aug 1998, Steve Lamb wrote:

>     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.

Nothing is changing. The decision to use revision numbers was made during
the release of 1.3 and is over a year old. This thread started because
there was a request that this not revert to the old system, but continue
in the same way as before.

You insist on talking about change as though this was a new problem that
needed some corrective action.

The discussion was hashed over long ago. The decision was made. 

No one is lying to anyone about anything, athough there is lots of
conjecture about what is meant by this or that. The facts are simple, the
solution uncomplicated, and the vendors are satisfied. Why aren't you
satisfied. (and don't tell me something you have already said, since it
hasn't convinced me of anything yet)


_-_-_-_-_-   Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide"  _-_-_-_-_-_-

aka   Dale Scheetz                   Phone:   1 (850) 656-9769
      Flexible Software              11000 McCrackin Road
      e-mail:  dwarf@polaris.net     Tallahassee, FL  32308

_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-

Reply to: