On 3 Aug 2000, Philip Hands wrote:
> with a space before the r, to emphasise the point that the revision
> number is largely irrelevant to users when it's so easy to use apt-get
Yet someone sometime started to call it "point _
On 3 Aug 2000, Philip Hands wrote:
> "J.A. Bezemer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > And IMHO 2.2r0 sounds much better than 2.2_r0 - so I'd suggest having a
> > DEBVERSION="2.2r0" for the official CDs that will be made in 1.5 weeks or
> > so.
>
> IIRC the right way of writing the full version
"J.A. Bezemer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And IMHO 2.2r0 sounds much better than 2.2_r0 - so I'd suggest having a
> DEBVERSION="2.2r0" for the official CDs that will be made in 1.5 weeks or so.
IIRC the right way of writing the full version was supposed to be:
X.Y rZ
with a space before th
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you 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 think the 'r' notation is evil, and strongly suggest we use a simple
sequence of digits, like
4 matches
Mail list logo
