New Doc Review Request

[Jesse Keating]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sunday 08 February 2004 23:34, Charles R. Anderson wrote:
> and the .0 could be incremented for each iteration of an update
> undergoing QA/testing.  This would also help reduce "release
> inflation" that might interfere with a future FC package's release
> number that is as yet unknown (unless Red Hat will be checking
> FedoraLegacy before coming up with new release numbers for future FC
> packages?).

There is work being done inside Red Hat to start using a package naming 
scheme that won't conflict with folks like us.  Basically it sounds like 
they'll start using a distro release tag.

> Come to think of it, why can't we just use the incremented minor
> number always with the same major release number as the existing RH/FC
> package?  Even if the existing release number has multiple components
> separated with periods, can we not just add a .1 after all that and
> keep incrementing that number for each legacy release?

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying here.

Regardless, I've added a new section to the doc, called Build Updates.  
Please review.

- -- 
Jesse Keating RHCE	(http://geek.j2solutions.net)
Fedora Legacy Team	(http://www.fedoralegacy.org)
Mondo DevTeam		(www.mondorescue.org)
GPG Public Key		(http://geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)

Was I helpful?  Let others know:
 http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAJ7Mb4v2HLvE71NURAkXpAJ9HzBNs3bCAX4kkxatVA970hxwp5QCfbpio
wGIyNFcAsaj3ioAUTglXBek=
=ZLAM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----