Subject: Re: NetBSD version naming - suggestion
To: Frederick Bruckman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Greywolf <email@example.com>
Date: 04/15/2003 11:26:23
Thus spake Frederick Bruckman ("FB> ") sometime Today...
FB> Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 09:40:52 -0500 (CDT)
FB> From: Frederick Bruckman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
FB> To: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
FB> Cc: Martin Weber <Ephaeton@gmx.net>, email@example.com
FB> Subject: Re: NetBSD version naming - suggestion
FB> On Tue, 15 Apr 2003, Robert Elz wrote:
FB> > And one thing I forgot in my previous message - never any exceptions
FB> > from the numbering scheme, numbers are free, if a new version number
FB> > after 1.4.3 is needed, 1.4.4 would be it, always, no 1.4.3A nonsense
FB> > to just confuse the world even more.
FB> You're beating a dead horse. The 1.4 branch is dead -- "end of life".
FB> The present release branches append "_STABLE" to the result of "uname"
FB> to indicate that the binaries were cut between releases.
I think his point with 1.4 was not specifically 1.4, but rather a
principle by which to name releases from here on out.
Perhaps we should be going out to the fourth place as a -current tack;
this would give us 1.6..[0..99], which would be even better than
trying to figure out the logic of the numbers.
NetBSD: exercised any daemons lately?