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

Re: Naming of new 2.0 release

>>"Steve" == Steve Lamb <morpheus@calweb.com> writes:

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

	Hiding what is on the CD's? You really have no idea what the
 versioning is al about. All CD's shall be abeled clearly, saying what
 they have. If manufacturers capture 2.0 r2, they should really say
 that on front. Nobody;s hiding anything, which you would have known
 had you done the rest of us the courtesy of looking at the debatewhen
 we decided to do this.

 >> What problem are you trying to solve?  

 Steve>     One of simple principle.

	I find 2.0 r2 and 2.0.2 to be really indistinguishable,
 except for marketing droids. What principle is involved here? The
 people who can't tell the difference between 2.0 r2 and 2.0.2? 

 This fortune intentionally not included.
Manoj Srivastava  <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E

Reply to: