User Feedback :: DSL 3.2 still RC?

Just checking the current stable version number: Isn't "Current version" on the DSL home page for the latest stable version and "Current RC version for the latest release candidate (usually the stable version number plus at least 0.1)? I'm pretty sure I remember for a few weeks now seeing 3.1 as the "Current version" with 3.2RCx as the "Current RC version", so I was excited tonight to see 3.2 in the "Current version" slot. Looking at the download links, I only see 3.1 as the stable version. Should 3.1 remain on the home page until 3.2 makes it past release candidate phase, or am I just remembering the numbering scheme on the home page incorrectly? (Or is there a stable 3.2 that hasn't yet made it to the download sites?)

...also, hasn't DSL-N been at 0.1RC4 for a few months? It's listed as 0.1RC3 on the DSL home page.

(Sorry if this should have gone into the Release Candidates forum. I'm more concerned about what's displayed as the current stable version and this isn't about the performance of DSL 3.2RC3, so I didn't think it belonged there.)

Thanks,

dslf

I don't usually update the webpage. But I did just now. Thanks for pointing out the error that was made.

As far as the comment on status of dsl-n, I am only one person, and disabled too (Muscular Dystrophy). I have been the only one actively developing for DSL. There is no team DSL.

As such, I choose to develop where the most interest is. There is by far more users/interest in the support of a small distro that is not only small in size but suports very small machines, i.e., runs well in 32MB. Together with the fact that most all of my equipment is small and old, like me.

Mostly, I try to extend DSL to run more stuff on my limited size hardware. I think others like to see their old and small hardware able to run many things as well.

Robert

Hi Robert,

Thanks for the corrections. Not a big thing, but DSL is so, um, DAMN great, and popular, that it seemed worth fixing.

Also, sorry - I didn't mean to say that DSL-N isn't being developed quickly enough, just that the version number on the DSL site wasn't current. My bad.

dslf

original here.