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

Re: Naming of new 2.0 release

Steve Lamb <morpheus@calweb.com> wrote:
>     But if you document it (2.0.1 v. 2.0r1, v. "hamm/slink/stinky socks")
> then it defeats the purpose of the basis of this whole thread, hiding what
> is on the CD so the vendors can sell more copies.

No, it does not.

The issue is people making decisions without bothering to read the docs.
We're trying to provide a naming convention such that they're most likely
to make the right choice.

Of course, you seem to think that the right choice is one that pretends
that people shouldn't be using dpkg on an ongoing basis if they're
concerned about security.

You also seem to think that the right choice is one where you shouldn't
have to bother actually reading anything, let alone anything pertinent
to this subject.

On this basis, you want us to make a change to our naming convention that
(a) adds no information, and (b) will make some people unhappy.

In fact, I think that you're trying to be somewhat deceitful -- by
implying that hamm [2.0 r2] is in some fashion significant different from
hamm [2.0].  You want people who have already bought a copy of hamm to
think they need to shell out more money for a second copy?

If they have internet access, all they need to do is spend a bit of
time in dselect.  If they don't, then yeah, there is a vanishingly small
minority who need to buy a new cdrom (and they'll need to keep on buying
cdroms, or whatever, as new security updates become available).

So, let me ask you again: what are you trying to accomplish?  So far
you've only admitted to usenet style flaming.


Reply to: