Re: Naming of new 2.0 release

[Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net>]

On Wed, 26 Aug 1998, Steve Lamb wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 26, 1998 at 01:56:56PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > You insist on talking about change as though this was a new problem that
> > needed some corrective action.
> 
>     No.  It is an old problem that requires corrective action.
> 
> > The discussion was hashed over long ago. The decision was made. 
> 
>     The incorrect one, so we should do it again, and again, and again.
> 
Says you.

> > No one is lying to anyone about anything, athough there is lots of
> > conjecture about what is meant by this or that.
> 
>     "Do you have the latest release?"  (2.0r2/2.0.2)
> 
>     "Yes!" (2.0)
> 
>     What part of that is not lying?

Only the part in parentheses ;-)

In the above example the customer asked for the latest release, not the
latest revision. The latest release IS 2.0. (and currently there are no
revisions, although there is one planned)

>From my point of view it is "lying" to our users to tell them that 2.0.1
is a release of as much importance, with as much impact, as the 2.0
release was for those still living in 1.3. We lie to them when we allow
this to imply that the 2.0 release is now worthless, and no one in their
right mind would buy it.

The current use of revision numbers is MORE honest, as it gives a more
accurate picture. It says that a revision is something that happens to a
released version of Debian without the vast differences and difficulties
of a "true" release.

It is deceptive to imply that a release that took a year to put together
is somehow totally worthless when one package gets upgraded for security
reasons.

The revision numbering scheme is a much more accurate declaration of what
is happening than the old point release method. It provides an honest
characterization of what is being delivered without overstating the
importance of the revisions to the release.

> 
> > satisfied. (and don't tell me something you have already said, since it
> > hasn't convinced me of anything yet)
> 
>     It is because nothing will convince you.
> 
It is because your argument is based on false premises that they are
unacceptable. I am easy to convince when the logic is clean and clear.

Thanks, 

Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_-   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 _-_-_-_-_-_-_-