On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 11:40:01PM +0100, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> 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.
> 

There will most certainly be a 2.1. Minor releases will still happen as they
include a larger number of other fixes (small feature imports, man page 
updates, random userland fixes, etc) than these do.

James