Re: Naming of new 2.0 release
Hi,
>>"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?
manoj
--
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: