On Wed, 2003-04-16 at 14:09, Bill Anderson wrote: > No offense Mike, but that is *not* "various users *out there* in their > own minds" (emphasis mine), that is a posting from RH, which the rest of > us take as amazingly, from RH. If the people *at* RH expect the next > release to be 8.1 it seems a bit rude to me to go off on users "out > there" doing the same. > > Further, it *more* than just "historical precedence", it was official > policy when I took my RHCE exam was last year that the release sequence > was a float based number, not integer releases. Otherwise, there would > have been no need to update the policy for RHCEs. > > The only "truth" I was addressing was your claim that it was an > invention of "users out there" in "their own minds". I drew mine from > both the posting at RH, *and* the policy as stated when I took my RHCE. > That is far from "in my own mind". That's all I was saying. Jesus! Drop this useless crap already! Somebody start a "whine and bitch about RH numbering" list so people can go there and hash this drivel out there? -- Paradise; can it be all I heard it was? I close my eyes and maybe I'm already there.
