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

Re: Naming of new 2.0 release

On Wed, 26 Aug 1998 14:36:16 -0400 (EDT), Dale Scheetz wrote:

>>     The incorrect one, so we should do it again, and again, and again.

>Says you.

    Says me and a few others.

>>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.

    Which is not being said.  Numbering it 2.0.1 does not do that any more
than 2.0r1.  2.0r1, however, is a cop out that is lying to those who want the
latest, it is trying to fake them into thinking there isn't *ANY* difference
*AT ALL* between 2.0 and 2.0.1.

>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.

    Says who?

    ^ ^ ^
    | | |
    | | ----- REVISION
    | |-----------------MINOR

    Funny, looks like it is a revision to the 2.0 major release to me.  What
do you see?  I'm quite curious.

>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

    It is deceptive to put 2.0r1 or, OSR1, just because some people will view
2.0.1 as a major release.

>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.

    The "old point release" method is saying THE EXACT SAME THING.  The only
difference is a . has changed into a r in an effort to fool the clueless.

>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.

    No, my arguements are pointing out that yours are the false premises. 
However, since you will hear nothing of it, you will never be convinced.  You
have *STILL* not said what will happen when the average joe realizes that
2.0.1 and 2.0r1 are the same thing, just different in one character.  So far
others have said they would change the scheme again.  That, to me, sounds
like "bait and switch" and "deception" to me.  I eagerly wait your reply to
that unanswered question.

             Steve C. Lamb             | Opinions expressed by me are not my
    http://www.calweb.com/~morpheus    | employer's.  They hired me for my
             ICQ: 5107343              | skills and labor, not my opinions!

Reply to: