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

Re: Naming of new 2.0 release

On Wed, Aug 26, 1998 at 10:24:35AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
>     In short, deception.  If I call up and ask "Do you have the latest
> release of Debian?" and mean "2.0.2/2.0r2" and he says, "Yes, we do have the
> latest release of Devian!" and means 2.0, then he is wrong.  Plain and
> simple, he is wrong and the customer has been deceived.

No, 2.0 is the latest release, but there are minor revisions to it.
It's still the 2.0 release. It's still hamm. In fact, if we got
the vendors to call it "Debian hamm", there'd be no problem at all,
would there?

>     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.

But like Dale has been saying, the developers agreed for 1.3.1 onwards to 
do it this way -- no change is being made.

Hamish Moffatt, hamish@debian.org, hamish@rising.com.au, hmoffatt@mail.com
Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5
CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome.   http://hamish.home.ml.org

Reply to: