Gordon Keehn said: > Somebody wrote: > > >> Again, I disagree. Having installed FC2 test 2 through the final >> release there were a number of improvements. The end result wasn't >> perfect, but it never will be. There were also a large number of >> changes in FC2 vs. FC1. I highly doubt this will always be the case >> (for example, FC3 doesn't appear to have anything drastically >> different). >> >> > Then maybe FC 3 should be called FC 2.1. I've always been more > comfortable with dot-1 releases anyhow. How does calling it FC 3 vs FC 2.1 change anything? Version numbers are just a convenient way to refer the group of packages. I saw the same mentality when RHL 9 was announce when everyone assumed it would be RH 8.1. Suddenly a person that thought RH 8.1 was going to be wonderful said RHL 9 would not be. It's going to be the third release of Fedora Core, so Fedora Core 3 is appropriate. -- William Hooper
