On Sat, Apr 06, 2002, Barry A. Warsaw wrote: >
From my own perspective it seems that 2.1.x is viewed as the stable release family, and each micro release reaffirms its stability. That's a good thing. That 2.2.x is viewed as more experimental is simply caused by the new type/class stuff, and I don't think there's much marketing you could do to change that perception. Maybe 2.2 should have been called 3.0 <wink>.
Hmph. Why are you winking? Between new-style classes and the division change, that's actually a sensible suggestion.
How about we change "2.3" to "3.1", making 3.0 a retroactive symlink to 2.2. (Okay, so I'm mostly joking here, but I really do think there'd be
Aahz (firstname.lastname@example.org) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/
"There are times when effort is important and necessary, but this should not be taken as any kind of moral imperative." --jdecker