>>>>> "IanJ" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
IanJ> David Engel's proposed stable tree which only gets bugfixes IanJ> provides this too. We don't need to cast the release in stone. So call it R6.0, R6.1, R6.2, etc (and call the experimental version R7alpha, or "experimental", "development", or the like). The arguments for an unfrozen the stable tree are reasonable enough, and probably more consistent with the ethic of Free software. However, the combined bitstring of all the package release dates and/or version numbers does uniquely identify a system -- this huge number can be thought of as a version number. Sure, it could be generated on the fly for purposes of reporting bugs or for communicating needed information to support people. But if R6 doesn't have minor release numbers, and the documentation doesn't emphasize that "R6" is not a sufficient identification it will create the image of administrative sloppiness and create confusion-- especially novice users who think they are going to rely on vendors or other support people. "But I have R6 -- what do you mean I'm not telling you enough?!" IanJ> Just because there is no one thing you can point to IanJ> that is Linux 1.2.x doesn't mean that it isn't a useful concept. But there is "x"!!
