On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Ben Collins wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > But still, if we are going to make that assumption, then we should call > this one 2.2r1, and not skip the nomenclature. It's confusing.
Agree about it being confusing. If we want to keep "r" meaning "revision", what about calling this one 2.2r0? 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
