Subject: Re: make kernel question
To: Dave Burgess <email@example.com>
From: Curt Sampson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/04/1997 15:08:43
On Tue, 3 Jun 1997, Dave Burgess wrote:
> > Would you call these changes big enough to warrant a 2.0 instead of
> > a 1.3?
> We should have changed to Version 2 when the system calling methodology
> changed back before 1.2.
Personally, one of the things I really like about NetBSD is that
it doesn't increment the highest-order version number needlessly.
I don't see any functionality added between 1.0 and 1.2 that's
significant enough, from a user's point of view, to force a move
to 2.0. SunOS and Digital Unix have had more changes in one major
version number than HP/UX has had in three; that doesn't make me
think that HP/UX is better, or even help me to tell the difference
between HP/UX releases.
As far as release plans go, I was having a beer last night with a
friend of mine working for a company producing software, and he
mentioned that they'd moved from sliding the date in order to get
the features in to sliding the features in order to make the date
(i.e., when alpha test time comes around, you drop features that
don't work, rather than delaying, and the same again when you
release). He said that productivity improved noticably, in part
because people felt more successful because regular releases were
going out on time.
Curt Sampson email@example.com Info at http://www.portal.ca/
Internet Portal Services, Inc. Through infinite myst, software reverberates
Vancouver, BC (604) 257-9400 In code possess'd of invisible folly.