geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Vamsavardhana Reddy" <c1vams...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] G 2.0 M1 Content
Date Wed, 06 Dec 2006 04:45:54 GMT
2.0 followed by 2.0-geronimo-developer :o)

--vamsi

On 12/6/06, Matt Hogstrom <matt@hogstrom.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 5, 2006, at 2:41 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>
> > On Dec 5, 2006, at 11:34 AM, Sachin Patel wrote:
> >> I don't see the confusion at all, as long as the M<n> is preceded
> >> by the final release version (ex. geronimo-2.0-M1).
> >
> > Yes, but already Matt is referring to "M1" with no 2.0 prefix.
> >
> > Anyways... I don't like it... but I don't have the energy to debate
> > it.
>
> My bad.   I meant 2.0-M1...I'll correct that omission in the future.
> I now understand the confusion.
>
> What other suffix do you think would be appropriate?  I don't care if
> its 2.0-frog1.  Following an evolutionary theme we could have:
>
> 2.0-proteinStrand
> 2.0-singleCellOrganism
> 2.0-fish
> 2.0-frog
> 2.0-chimp
> 2.0-homosapien
> 2.0
>
> :)
>
>
> >
> > --jason
> >
>
> Matt Hogstrom
> matt@hogstrom.org
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message