On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Martin Schulze wrote: > 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". Let's make it explicit and call it 2.2r0. The "r" should prevent confusion with kernels. We know what we mean, but other people could be confused.
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
