Peter Vandenabeele wrote: > On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 07:18:04PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: > > Peter Vandenabeele wrote: > > > This needs to be done fast, so that journalists and other interested > > > parties that want to follow up on this "news" also get our side > > > of the story. Otherwise we leave them with only the ZDnet side of > > > the story. > > > > Where is the problem? We cannot correct everything a random news > > media emits about Debian. We haven't done that and we probably > > won't do that. > > I agree. I don't suggest to correct what a news site (in casu ZDnet) > emits. > > My only proposal is to urgently bring the information of which version > is the current "stable" version in line on the different pages under > http://www.debian.org. At this moment (Friday 12:42 pm in Brussels), > the home page still mentions 3.1r0 (and not 3.1r0a) as the most recent > stable release.
Maybe that's because the release is 3.1r0 and not 3.1r0a? It's only the CD and DVD images that have the 'a' appended to denote that they're a bit newer and have this one bug fixed that was announced on debian-devel-announce. This is not a new release, it's just fixed images, that were broken for about one day from when the 3.1 announcement was sent out. Regards, Joey -- Of course, I didn't mean that, which is why I didn't say it. What I meant to say, I said. -- Thomas Bushnell -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]