Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 08:13:54PM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
And while this was just a naming change.. it was a big deal to the
cultures involved. Technical changes on the other hand have a bigger
It *was* a big deal, because at that point, Red Hat had built up a solid
tradition of making really questionable .0 releases, decent .1 releases, and
great .2 releases.
Hmmm. If we consider 7.3 to _really_ be 8.0, 8 to really be 8.1, and 9 to be
8.2, this held true for that series too. Maybe even for FC1, FC2, and FC3.
:)
Doesn't fit with the code. 7.3 was the last in the 'increasingly
reliable' series. 8 and 9 each introduced new breakage that was never
fixed. RHEL3.x would have been the logical successor to 7.3 in terms of
being the next thing you would want to trust.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
