On Tue, 18 Jun 2002, Joerg Schilling wrote:
{ >But then why do you call it v1.11alpha if it's not "alpha quality" code?=20
{ >With this naming scheme one could reasonably assume that v1.10 is the=20
{ >stable version and v1.11alpha is the development/unstable version and=20
{ >so should not be included in a stable release of a distribution.
{
{ But cannot Linux-2.4 really called a development kernel?
Why do you talk about the series 2.4 of the Linux kernel? The discussion
is on the "alpha" name tage that you add to version 1.11 of cdrecord.
{ I believe that any cdrecord release is more "stable" than current Linux
{ kernels that brought even massive VM changes _after_ the official
{ release has been brought out.
Again, I don't see the link with the VM changes in the 2.4 Linux kernels.
You urge everyone to use the latest alpha release. This is very
inconsistent.
I beleive (and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one) that there is noting
"alpha" about the latest v1.11 of cdrecord. If you would drop the "alpha"
name tag every Linux distribution that does not already include v1.11 in
their latest/next release would do so. The number of emails about problems
with v1.10 (on this list) would decrease.
Denis
_______________________________________________
Denis Pelletier
�tudiant au doctorat
sciences �conomiques, Universit� de Montr�al
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
