I didn't pay close attention to this thread, but I would assume that
links for stable and beta would be enough. There should also be links
referenced by name (ie 21.1 or 21.4) as long as we have enough disk
space, but I don't see any reason to have these explicitly called out
on the webpage. Stable would point at 21.1 at this moment, and would
move to 21.4 RSN. Beta would point to 21.5.
That's how I see things, anyway.
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
>>>>> "APA" == Adrian Aichner
APA> Our marketing guys need to provide us with some user-base
APA> data, showing their distribution across stable, gamma, and
APA> I assume stable will be the fat rabbit.
For installations, yes. Why would they use the web version of the
manuals rather than Info? Many reasons, but in general pretty weak,
don't you think? OTOH, gamma is (a) about to be installed but not yet
in many places, and (b) more of a moving target from release to
Stephen> 21.5 -> 21.5_has_forked_into_22.0_gamma_and_22.1_beta.html.
Let's put it this way. What is the current version of 21.2?
APA> People click beta and find that it's currently pointing to
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Don't ask how you can "do" free software business;
ask what your business can "do for" free software.