On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Ben Collins wrote: > 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? IIRC, the second release of 2.1 was called 2.1r2 to avoid the confusion I am in the process of creating. We may mean the "r" to mean "revision", but many people would interpret it as "release" and so would see 2.2 as being identical with 2.2r1.
Phil. - Philip Charles; 39a Paterson St., Abbotsford, New Zealand; +64 3 4882818 Mobile 025 267 9420. I sell GNU/Linux CDs. See http://www.copyleft.co.nz
