Re: Naming of new 2.0 release
Steve Lamb <email@example.com> wrote:
> The who point of "2.0r1" versus "2.0.1" is to fool the general
> public into thinking that 2.0 is still viable. Guess what, they are!
> As I said, I know that and you know that. That is not, nor ever was,
> in my mind, called into question.
Let me get this straight. You think that we're fooling the public
into believing the truth, but you still object?
> The issue is the priniple of the matter. If a user is requesting
> the latest release/revision/whatever 2.0 != 2.0.1. 2.0 != 2.0r1,
> either. Changing a . to a r does not change the nature of the beast.
> It is euphamstic, at best.
So, on principle, you're objecting to using a euphamism for the truth?
> That is what is called into question. The idiotic changing of the
> version numbering scheme to deceive.
What exactly is it that you're not calling into question then?