On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 10:55:09PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote: > Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Wichert Akkerman wrote: > > > Previously Philip Hands wrote: > > > > Shouldn't that be 2.2 r1? > > > > > > The first revision will be 2.2r1 > > > > That's interesting -- there was no 2.1r1. See > > ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/stable/ChangeLog which begins with > > 2.1r2. > > Exactly. > > This is the mistake I thought I'd try and make sure we didn't repeat, > hence my mail. > > So just to make this clear, we're calling the releases as follows: > > > 2.2 The thing that's definitely happening in a couple of weeks ;-) > > 2.2r1 The first revision, after the initial release > > 2.2r2 etc. > > Right?
Makes much more sense to me. First revision means you revised something. So we can't call the first potato release revision 1 because we didn't revisise 2.2 at all. IMO r1 should be what we call the next point release. -- -----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------ / Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
