On Sun, Apr 13, 2003 at 12:54:45PM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> (... suggestion to name -current ...)

You are aware that your use of odd and even minor version numbers
goes straight against what is used in the GNU world ? I.e. a linux
release would have an even minor version, and the development would
have an odd minor version. Which makes more sense, too. Look at this:
(due to your suggestion)

	release       2.1.0
	development   2.0.x

Now 2.0.x would start on the same set as 2.1.0, have a lower minor
version number but still be newer than the release. If you call that
working against confusion...

Now let's assume the first development thing was 2.2.x

    release      2.1.0
    development  2.2.x

Everyone coming from a GNU world will wonder why there are so many
release (i.e. minor version is even, 2 here) version rushing along.


I think what *might* be helpful was to name -current after the release
it has passed. I.e. 1.6A-R, 1.6.1A-x ... so you'd clearly saw which
one was younger. Anyways, I like our version naming scheme...

-Martin