On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 15:26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In a message dated: 07 Oct 2002 15:07:26 EDT > Paul Iadonisi said: > > >On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 11:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >[snip] > > > >> - and an X.3 release is pretty much unheard of, and IMO, > >> indicative of just how much was wrong with the entire 7.x > >> series :) > > > > Minor nit: I know the inside story about why there was a 7.3 and can > >only say that it had zero to do with the problems or lack of problems > >with 7.2. > > Well then, please enlighten us :)
The basic issue is that Red Hat only bumps major release numbers when there are backward (or is it forward? Or both maybe? I forgot) binary compatibility issues. I think the fact that they stuck with the .0, .1, .2 release numbers is purely coincidental. There was nothing in the release following 7.2 to justify calling it 8.0, so they stuck with the 7.x numbering. They try not to play release number races with other distros. (Actual, most distros have been pretty good about not doing that. Now Solaris -- that's another story ;-)). -- -Paul Iadonisi Senior System Administrator Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist Ever see a penguin fly? -- Try Linux. GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
