Re: Naming of new 2.0 release
On 27-Aug-1998, Michael Bramer <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 1998 at 08:05:39PM +1000, Tyson Dowd wrote:
> > But we could do it, I suppose.
> > The problem is, r1 patch CDs aren't worth much when r2 patch CDs
> > come out -- they will have all the r1 patches plus more. Anyone who
> > wants a patch CD would not settle for anything but the latest (why else
> > would you buy a patch CD if not to get the latest fixes).
> > So you're really just going to delay the problem one revision.
> We build a CD-set, after 2-3 month (or every month) we make a patch-cd with
> all new stable packages, after 3-5 month we make a new CD-set.
If you build one every month then the previous months patch CD is worth
very little, because it doesn't contain a complete system, just a bunch
of patches, which are outdated anyway. The whole reason you would buy
a patch CD is because it is up-to-date. If there is a more up-to-date
one on the market, your patch CD isn't worth much anymore.
So after the first month, there's just a different problem for silver
vendors -- outdated patch CDs.
Then, when you release the new release, there are two problems --
outdated patch CDs and outdated base CDs.
> in the first case, we have only one patch-cd between the set's. no problem
> (I prefer this case)
> in the other case (patch-cd every month), we have no silver cd. This cd are
> gold cd.
It doesn't solve the problem of out-of-date CDs.
It is nice in that you can get binary+source fixes on one CD instead
of 2 or 3.
However I don't think a significant number of people are clamouring
for this problem to be solved (yet).
If you are nice to the silver vendors, they will be able to supply
3CD silver sets at the same price as a single gold CD anyway, they
might just take a little longer to get to market.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
Tyson Dowd <email@example.com> http://tyse.net