Let's formally change the non-existent release procedure to match what we're actually in the middle of doing [was Re: 1.7.1 release date?]

[Dave Korn <dave dot korn dot cygwin at googlemail dot com>]

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 07:34:51AM +0000, Dave Korn wrote:
>> Or we could use "release" for the first release, "release-2" for the
>> second release, "release-3" for the third release, "release-4" for the
>> fourth release, and so on.
> 
> Or, we could have a formal discussion about totally changing the Cygwin
> release model and not hide it in a mailing list thread with the subject
> "1.7.1 release date" in a side thread about whimsical directory names.

  You're absolutely right.  If we were going to have a discussion about
"totally changing" the "Cygwin release model" (you mean there actually /is/
one?), it should be a new thread.

  However, since what I did was merely documenting what we *already have
done*, and considering how it might extrapolate to the future, I just didn't
realise that that was what was going on.  It surely would have been clearer if
I had said "release series" rather than just "release", and if I had said
explicitly "1.3 doesn't fit this pattern, but what we have now does, so why
change twice what we could just change once", and I neglected to express
myself as clearly as I could have done, so sorry if that led you to a false
inference about what I was actually trying to communicate.

    cheers,
      DaveK