On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Philip Charles wrote:
> 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.
I agree with that. AFAIK the CD's volume ID (& .disk/info & README) is the
only place this occurs a
Hi,
relese notes for potato mention that "The `console-tools-data' package was
+merged back into console-tools.". This is not right. console-tools-data' was
renamed to `console-data'.
Also, whereas kbd was the default package for console handling in 2.1,
console-data took its place and kbd is s
Hi,
relese notes for potato mention that "The `console-tools-data' package was
+merged back into console-tools.". This is not right. console-tools-data' was
renamed to `console-data'.
Also, whereas kbd was the default package for console handling in 2.1,
console-data took its place and kbd is s
Previously Brooks R. Robinson wrote:
> Just couldn't help but add my $0.02! For the M$ server products (NT and
> 2000), the initial release is always Service Pack 1.
That is not true. A service pack is a collection of hotfixes and other
(sometimes major) changes. For example the first servi
- Original Message -
From: "Philip Charles" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Martin Schulze" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Ben Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Philip Hands" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
;
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 1:45 PM
Subject: Re: point release versioning [was Re: dedication]
> Let
Hey!
Just couldn't help but add my $0.02! For the M$ server products (NT and
2000), the initial release is always Service Pack 1. It seems odd to me
(not really, I just consider the source) that the initial release of a
software package has a service pack already. I would therefore state
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",
> >
On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 04:40:30AM +, Philip Charles wrote:
> Agree about it being confusing. If we want to keep "r" meaning
> "revision", what about calling this one 2.2r0?
This way we could simply call it 2.2.0 (not so bad idea anyway,
but may be confused with kernel versions).
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
9 matches
Mail list logo
