Tobias Powalowski wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 4. Oktober 2007 schrieb Aaron Griffin:
Ok, here's where the confusion lies.
Let me explain the way I thought we planned on doing this, so we can see where the confusion lies.
Release: YYYY.MM Bug fix: Original YYYY.MM plus -NUM New kernel: New YYYY.MM
So, if this is a bug fix release for the 2007.09 ISO, I was under the assumption the date would remain 2007.09. I thought we had planned to only change the date when the kernel changes. In which case, the "codename" would change.
Here the date has changed. So I am assuming the codename should.
Am I the one that is confused or is it the other way around?
_______________________________________________ arch-dev-public mailing list arch-dev-public@archlinux.org http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public
There is no new kernel on it since 2007.08 it is still .22 series so it would make sense to call it 2007.08-2
That's fine, though maybe we should consider calling it 2.6.22-2. If our releases are actually pegged to kernel releases, then why not say what we mean? Saying 2007.08 for a release made in 2007.10 is misleading. That said, I don't care that much. There's *way* too much going on right now in Arch land to spend time painting bikesheds! - P