Why 3.4a?

Installer Issues via Installer -- Not for global upgrades or upgrading individual packages -- ONLY ISSUES WITH INSTALLATION OF THE OS -- Can't get Sabayon installed, than post here, otherwise use correct forums

Moderator: Moderators

Why 3.4a?

Postby get sirius » Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:35

This is purely to satisfy my curiousity. To me, 3.4a implies a 3.4b, and I could understand denoting a first release candidate of 3.4 as 3.4a, so the second release candidate would reasonably be 3.4b. I don't get calling a stable release anything but 3.4. And please don't construe my question as criticism - I'm just a wanting-to-know sort of person :D .

Thanks!
get sirius
Baby Hen
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 3:19
Location: Madison, WI

Postby WarraWarra » Fri Jul 27, 2007 4:11

What happened is the beta testing team got 3.4 and found some bugs, not to confuse it with the fixed version of 3.4 they labeled it 3.4a .
Hope this helps.
Don't worry we don't nuke people here like other forums. We are a bunch of like minded people helping each other / working together to get the best pc experience available.
If you have some good info or fixes for any post here plz feel free to help.

Hope you enjoy your stay LOL.
WarraWarra
Sagely Hen
 
Posts: 1989
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 21:01
Location: 31.324270, -113.585511

Postby get sirius » Sat Jul 28, 2007 1:16

Good explanation. Thanks!

I tend to be more of a lurker than an active poster, but I do open my mouth occasionally to make a point (sometimes all I accomplish is getting my foot caught in it :lol: ). I've been registered on the Gentoo forums since April 2002, and in all that time I only managed to make around 325 posts. Not too many by any standard.

Again, thanks for explaining the 3.4a.
get sirius
Baby Hen
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 3:19
Location: Madison, WI

Postby wolfden » Sat Jul 28, 2007 1:46

would it matter if it was called 3.4abcdefg? the release announcements says Final Stable Release
wolfden
Sharecropper
 
Posts: 9051
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 0:55
Location: Midwest USA

Postby get sirius » Sat Jul 28, 2007 14:01

Don't read more into my question than is there. I said it was simple curiousity, and I meant it :!: Obviously a rose by any other name....
get sirius
Baby Hen
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 3:19
Location: Madison, WI

Postby cheater1034 » Mon Jul 30, 2007 0:24

They could of named it 3.4.1 :-p
cheater1034
Baby Hen
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 0:14

Re: Why 3.4a?

Postby LinuxHack » Fri Aug 03, 2007 3:58

get sirius wrote:This is purely to satisfy my curiousity. To me, 3.4a implies a 3.4b, and I could understand denoting a first release candidate of 3.4 as 3.4a, so the second release candidate would reasonably be 3.4b. I don't get calling a stable release anything but 3.4. And please don't construe my question as criticism - I'm just a wanting-to-know sort of person :D .

Thanks!


Don't feel bad I've thought the samething.... :shock:

Maybe one of the Mods may know??? :?

NEVER MIND for some reason I didn't get the rest of the Post until mine....

BLIND I guess.... :oops:
LinuxHack
Baby Hen
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:56
Location: In the SHADOWS of my Mind

Postby wolfger » Fri Aug 03, 2007 12:59

wolfden wrote:would it matter if it was called 3.4abcdefg? the release announcements says Final Stable Release

Yes, the release announcement says "Final Stable Release". It also says "3.4". I spent a good 10-15 minutes looking for 3.4 before I finally decided 3.4a must be it. To me, 3.4a implies "alpha". A bugfix version should have been called 3.4.1 (like every other distro does it) in my opinion. There is no ambiguity that 3.4.1 is superior to 3.4, but 3.4a makes the user wonder.
wolfger
Baby Hen
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 17:31
Location: New Baltimore, MI

Postby lxnay » Fri Aug 03, 2007 18:35

my god :shock:
Image
Join us on IRC (chat.freenode.net #sabayon or WebChat)
Submit bugs to our Bug Tracker
Follow me on Twitter
Add me on Facebook
Add me on Google+
lxnay
Land Owner
 
Posts: 3595
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 23:16
Location: Italy

Postby Eden » Fri Aug 03, 2007 19:26

I may as well add my little bit. :)

When it comes to versioning of software there is no actual standard, there guidelines but no standard. Every distro and every program has there own way of doing versioning, some programmers prefer to update the version for every minor update ending up with 0.2.3.1.5 of a program it just so happens we dont use minor numbers, the a in 3.4a was for beta testers benefits as 3.4 already had been released to them.

With 3.4e coming out we haven't skipped all the letters in between and we haven't gone though 3 other version because e stands for Entropy and not Epsilon if your following the Greek alphabet, which you would be if your assuming a is for alpha and while we are here how come I don't see anyone asking where 3.4b,c & d are?
Eden
Growing Hen
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 16:44
Location: Scotland, UK

Next

Return to Installer Issues - Calamares **Not for Package Manager Stuff**

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron