Le Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 01:17:24PM +0200, J.A. Bezemer écrivait:
> Oh dear. I see a terrible thing there that I'd classify as a beginners error.
> There are no quotes. Not around $DEBVERSION, but that was (until now) no big
> problem. $dir isn't quoted. And $dir can be anything, even
> "something ;
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
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
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
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
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 wit
>
> 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 th
On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 10:55:09PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> > Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > > > Previously Philip Hands wrote:
> > > > > Shouldn't that be 2.2 r1?
> > > >
> > > > The first revision will be
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 10:55:09PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > > Previously Philip Hands wrote:
> > > > Shouldn't that be 2.2 r1?
> > >
> > > The first revision will be 2.2r1
> >
> > That's interesting -- there was no 2.1r1
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > Previously Philip Hands wrote:
> > > Shouldn't that be 2.2 r1?
> >
> > The first revision will be 2.2r1
>
> That's interesting -- there was no 2.1r1. See
> ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/stable/ChangeLog which begins with
> 2
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Philip Hands wrote:
> > Shouldn't that be 2.2 r1?
>
> The first revision will be 2.2r1
That's interesting -- there was no 2.1r1. See
ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/stable/ChangeLog which begins with
2.1r2.
--
see shy jo
Previously Philip Hands wrote:
> Shouldn't that be 2.2 r1?
The first revision will be 2.2r1, but we'll do a second revision
as well at some point.
Wichert.
--
/ Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience \
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think that the way add-bin-doc currently detects a dedication is going
> to fail as soon as we release 2.2 r2 -- then DEBVERSION will be 2.2_r2,
> and the test will fail.
Shouldn't that be 2.2 r1?
Just thought we should sort this out before it happens.
20 matches
Mail list logo
