Re: Naming of new 2.0 release

[Philip Hands <phil@hands.com>]

> 
> --3ecMC0kzqsE2ddMN
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> 
> On Thu, Aug 27, 1998 at 12:32:19PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Michael Bramer wrote:
> > > I have possibly a solution:
> > >=20
> > > We don't make a new CD-set. The next CD-set is Debian slink aka Debian =
> 2.1.
> > > Now we make only a 'patch-CD' from hamm-unstable.=20
> >=20
> > We're not speaking about a new cd set.  Well, some of us are referring
> > to a new set of official cd image.  My concern was and still is release
> > numbering, revision numbering.  Regardless of the official cd image set.
> 
> Yes, I know.
> 
> CD-set=3Dset of cd-images=20
> 
> I write the sentence once more:
> We don't make new cd images. The next cd-images is Debian slink aka Debian
> 2.1. Now we make only a 'patch-CD-image' from hamm-unstable.

Since many people are only interested in buying the binary CD for their 
architecture (i.e. one CD), it is no more expensive to burn a full binary CD,
than it is to burn a patch, and the full binary CD is much more useful, since
it is complete in it's own right.

Perhaps a patch CD and a new set would be the right way to go, then CD 
manufactures could decide for themselves, depending on thier current stock.

Can we ask them, to find out if they would be interested in a patch CD ?
I don't want to put the effort into making them, if they won't get used.

Cheers, Phil.