On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, James Chacon wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 04:15:31PM +0000, Matthias Scheler wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 10:11:25AM -0600, James Chacon wrote:
> > > Except it isn't 2.0.2. It has changes not in the 2.0.x branch.
> >
> > Yes, I know. But it is *much* closed to 2.0.2_BETA than to 2.0_BETA.
>
> It's 2.0_STABLE. There wasn't a BETA there ever except maybe at the tail
> end of the release process.
>
> >
> > > Labelling it as anything associated with the 2.0.x branch is just
> > > wrong since it has a larger superset of those changes which may/may
> > > not be completely the same.
> >
> > Labelling it as a beta of the 2.0 release is even worse.
>
> It's not a beta of 2.0. It's 2.0 "stable".
>
> Where stable means "post 2.0, not yet 2.1" (same as it did for 1.6)

Except that if I understood things correctly, it will not be 2.1, but 3.0?
There aren't any minor releases anymore. Corrections for 2.0 will be 2.1
and so on, but development work goes towards 3.0.

	Johnny

Johnny Billquist                  || "I'm on a bus
                                  ||  on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt@update.uu.se           ||  Reading murder books
pdp is alive!                     ||  tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol