On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 04:15:31PM +0000, Matthias Scheler wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 10:11:25AM -0600, James Chacon wrote:
> > Except it isn't 2.0.2. It has changes not in the 2.0.x branch.
> 
> Yes, I know. But it is *much* closed to 2.0.2_BETA than to 2.0_BETA.

It's 2.0_STABLE. There wasn't a BETA there ever except maybe at the tail
end of the release process.

> 
> > Labelling it as anything associated with the 2.0.x branch is just
> > wrong since it has a larger superset of those changes which may/may
> > not be completely the same.
> 
> Labelling it as a beta of the 2.0 release is even worse.

It's not a beta of 2.0. It's 2.0 "stable".

Where stable means "post 2.0, not yet 2.1" (same as it did for 1.6)

James