On Aug 22, Dave Cinege wrote: > On Fri, 22 Aug 1997 15:19:59 -0800 (AKDT), Britton wrote: > > >2. Changing the version numbering is bad. > > > >He's right about this. There was no reason to do it, and it looks like a > >pacification move toward vendors that functions by decieving (or at least > >misleading) end users. This is in direct conflict with Debian's official > >policy of 'not hiding problems'. At least one CD vendor has already > >agreed with him on this in this thread.
Nothing will be hidden. The revisions are changed within *minor* bug fixes. The point numbers are changed within *major* changes. So the new numbering scheme helps to indicate what sort of changes were made. > It's not just that. I really do like the x.x.x way of numbering. It's > linux-centric and > IMHO the right way to do it. But I can live with something else. What I can > not deal > with is making modifications to a frozen revision, and not changing the rev > number. > (especially just to make some CD maker happy) > > This has been my (violent) argument over the last few days. I think most > people > have been missing it, and think I'm just going crazy because it's going to be > called > 1.3 R2 instead of 1.3.2. This is not the case. But if you write this, then please say that it was clarified as a *mistake* by the persons who did this. Please stop to imply that this was done with the goal to hide changes. It was a mistake, made by volunteers that have a lot of work and do this in their spare time. You had your point, the responsible persons got it, and I saw several messages stating that this bug will be fixed in time. Still not satisfied? My backlog of this thread is far over 500kByte by now... Marcus -- "Rhubarb is no Egyptian god." Marcus Brinkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
