Subject: Re: NetBSD version naming - suggestion
To: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
From: TLD <>
List: current-users
Date: 04/15/2003 17:50:07
Robert Elz wrote:
 > The reason I picked even for development and odd for release, is that
 > there's always development before a release (one hopes) and that if
 > we take even/odd pairs, then most commonly, the even number is less
 > than the odd one (one might choose to exclude 0 completely, and use {1,2}
 > {3,4}, ... but that's not the way computer people traditionally count).
 > But the risk of confusion with linux stuff does suggest that perhaps
 > using even for releases, and odd for development may be even less
 > confusing.

Coming in just to say my PoV:
even/odd schemes are, to me, all but understandable.
A good example is the linux way, which I can read but I feel very 
unconfortable with.
Going back and further with versions is something I don't like, at all. The 
opposite goes for the actual naming of NetBSD versions: n.n (ie. 1.6) for 
releases, n.nL (like 1.6Q) for developement: it carries just the 
informations you need to track down splits, and you don't need to apply a 
mathematical function just to understand if it's "stable" or "developement".

Have fun :)

-- Just my 0.02p
/~\ The ASCII                            TLD
\ / Ribbon Campaign
  X  Against HTML        "I have evil to make function freenet"
/ \ Email!