Re: Stable Release plan
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 01:45:50PM +0100, lance wrote:
> > All I am asking for is enough time to make a reasonable effort at making
> > and shipping the version before the next version is released. If you want
> > to have interim releases with minor fixes - why not call them 2.2r3.1 etc
> > and produce an update iso rather than a complete new set of CD's ??
>
> Lance, I am most surprised that you would say this.
>
> We used to call the minor releases 1.2.1, 1.2.2 etc. The CD vendors
> complained about the updates (as you are doing), so we changed the
> naming scheme to 2.0r2, 2.0r3 etc so as to make the changes look
> less minimal. Now you're asking that we change again?
>
Sorry - the difference between 1.2.1, 1.2.2 and 2.1r2, 2.2r3 escapes me -
is the 'r' supposed to have special meaning ??
> Do you advertise your CD set as "2.2r2", or just "2.2"? I think
> the latter would be accurate enough, and should help to avoid
> complaints from your customers that your CDs are too old.
And we would then get loads of phone calls and emails asking whether we
had 2.2r3 and people who received 2.2r2 would complain that we had sent
them an old version.
Also there are people who will specifically order 2.2r0 because it has
certain features that work for them that arent in 2.2r3 (or they think it
does ;) ).
Maybe the compromise to produce only an update .iso (per platform ?) for
point releases, and not a new set of 6 .isos would be beneficial for
the cd image creators as well - because I am sure they arent going to be
happy producing a new set of isos every 3 or 4 weeks ;)
If it turns out that the changes take up more than a CD then maybe it
shouldnt be a point release after all ??
Regards
Lance
Reply to: