Philip Charles wrote:
> 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?
I always thought that's an implicit "r0".
Regards,
Joey
--
If you come from outside of Finland, you live in wrong country.
-- motd of irc.funet.fi
