Ken wrote: > My $0.02 regarding the whole 1.1 release naming: > > I would have preferred that 1.1 not really be out there. I never > announced it and I couldn't remove it, but somehow it ended up as > the release for a bunch of systems. I never considered this a > "real" release myself.
The unfortunate fact is that although you did not "announce" the release, by placing it in the public download directory it became a release. It was a mistake, but not a big one. People would have used whatever you placed there, be it an official release or a candidate release. If you had called it RC4, RC3.1, whatever, it would still be found in Debian Sarge, for example. > But as Jon has discovered, there are plenty of people out there who > will speak up when they think you're doing the wrong thing, but damn > few who will actually help. My advice to Jon is: do what you want, > and the rest of the world will have to suck it up if they don't like > it. You're doing the work: that gives you the right to make the > decision. I think he should give consideration to other people's > opinions, but the decision is ultimately his. Jon made a slight oversight based the version naming, but again, not a big deal. It'll get worked out one way or another. There was nothing in his 09/02 post that indicated he didn't know about the existence of nmh-1.1.tar.gz, just stating that, "This release should be the last in the 1. line. After this, we should start a 2." I had understood that to mean he would release a nmh-1.1.x.tar.gz tarball. nmh-1.2 or nmh-1.1.x doesn't really matter. The confusion only exists by re-releasing a 1.1 different than what's out there today. _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
