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

Re: Naming of new 2.0 release

Michael Bramer wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 1998 at 03:36:59PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Michael Bramer wrote:
> > > in short: no cd-set, no problem.
> > 
> > I'm sorry but you seem to miss the point.  We have to release a new revision
> > of Debian 2.0 containing security fixes.  This revision needs a name which is
> > either 2.0.1 or 2.0 r1.  So the current Version of Debian GNU/Linux is 2.0.1
> > or 2.0 and the revision is 2.0.1 or 1, depending on which naming scheme you're
> > using.
> > 
> > This new revision will be announced and a link on the ftp directory will
> > show that it is not plain and innocent 2.0 anymore.
> Yes, I understand.
> If we have to release a new revisision why not with a patch cd?

Go and make a patch cd and get happy with it.

It does not solve the original problem.

> > Thus cd vendors will be selling either plain 2.0 or 2.0 with local extensions
> > or one of the following revisions of 2.0.  This will happen independed of us
> > making official cd sets or not.  Thus no cd set -> no problem is simply wrong.
> > 
> > Version 2.0.1 looks different to 2.0 revision 1 for regular users.
> > 
> > Therefore I hope we'll have Debian 2.0 r1 soon and no 2.0.1.
> If we make a set, I see no problem with the "2.0 r1" solution.

The "2.0 r1" is not the problem.  That's the solution.  The problem
instead is that somebody wants to call the revision 2.0.1 so users
will not distinguish too much between plain 2.0 and 2.0.1.  And
unfortunately this is *outside* of our scope.  We cannot control this.
All we can do is to use a propper naming scheme so people don't get

Args, haven't thought that this is so difficult.



Unable to locate coffee, operator halted.  -- Stefan Farsch

Reply to: