On Sat, 9 Jul 2005, Nigel Jones wrote: > On 08/07/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 11:57:25AM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote: > > > I'm already seeing documentation referring to "Debian 3.2 (etch)". > > > > Where is this? It's certainly wrong for documentation to make assumptions > > about the release version number at this point, and is the kind of thing > > that makes it harder to change later. > > > > And after all, isn't the point of codenames to avoid third-parties > > incorrectly attaching a version number to a not-yet-released version? > > http://ru.wikibooks.org/wiki/LOR-FAQ-Debian seems to be saying Etch is 3.2 > Also http://www.computerbase.de/lexikon/Debian seems to be saying the same. > (Got these from a google search of "etch 3.2 debian" (page 8 onwards)).
Those references should be changed, then. It's *not* ok to refer to etch as Debian 3.2, as the version number for etch has not been decided yet. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
