Subject: Re: Release cycles (Was: Re: RealAudio)
To: Todd Vierling , Jim Bernard <email@example.com>
From: The Grey Wolf <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 11/03/1997 00:24:30
This may sound kind of wacky, but how about the concept that between
releases M.m and M.(m+1), the "interim releases", i.e. M.m.X, the X
doesn't have to be all inclusive or sequential.
Say, for example, you see
and then the pmax (or whatever) is ready for an interim release. You could
call it 1.3.1/pmax because it was the first release, but I think to skip
.1 (since there was no .1 ready at the time of 1.3.1/SPARC) would be a
wiser idea, since then you wouldn't have to map version numbers, and
you wouldn't find yourself wondering, "gee, does 1.3.1/pmax map to
1.3.3/SPARC or is that the other way around?"
Sun could have remained quite profitable by staying with BSD-based OSs, and
they wouldn't have pissed off NEARLY as many customers.