-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Alexander Dalloz wrote:
| Two nights ahead of the official release of Fedora Core 2 I would like | to initiate a discussion about the question, whether and if yes, how the | running release information should be a default information in list | postings which do not cover just general questions. | | I think for some time we will see users still running FC1 a lot will | soon upgrade. But often you can never be certain which stable release | someone is using, unless he gives that information or you can conclude | that from a specific package version or such information. So: | | - Should posters (nearly) always start their postings with a preface, | stating whether it is Fedora Core 1 or Fedora Core 2? | | - Should that be a guideline whether the poster with a question or | problem knows if the question / problem is release specific or whether | he does not know? | | - Should the standard information maybe come from: "cat | /etc/fedora-release"? -> | Fedora Core release 1 (Yarrow) | Fedora Core release 2 (Tettnang) | | I would vote for such a recommendation to posters, at least when not | very general topics are discussed. | | Looking forward your thoughts :)
Alexander,
Thanks for bringing this up....
1) We could recommend that all posters give the following information when posing a question about a specific version of FC. The FC release number... etc. ~ The only problem with this will be getting people to post like this. ~ Even so, how do you know it is a question limited to that version of FC.
2) If we need more information as to what version of FC, we can always ask... ~ This means though that some people will assume FC2 when the user may have FC1 installed.
3) Heaven forbid, create separate list for FC1 after this date for those that use the older version. ~ This way this list always contains the latest FC release questions, and refer people to another list for FC1 if they ask. Problem is that then things get confusing still about FC1 or FC2 and people not knowing... when looking in the archives.
4) Hmmmm.... this may require some deep thinking.....
Hope we find an answer soon, I've already seen several posts about FC2 already. About some mirrors saying they have it already... including some bittorret sites.
James Kosin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFAqQZoc7lFLjBWKW0RAvi3AJ0dWwDN520ifumezXXgBBhn4JgxRgCePyUM mHHBh6mJ2UF+XDfwRfcBh4A= =OG5g -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
