Subject: Re: NetBSD version naming - suggestion
To: Rich Neswold <email@example.com>
From: Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/22/2003 15:13:45
On Wed, 16 Apr 2003, Rich Neswold wrote:
> Wasn't it 13-Apr-2003, at 12:54PM, when Robert Elz said:
> > While the current naming scheme for -current is functional, and makes
> > some sense once you're used to it, I believe it is doing NetBSD a
> > dis-service in the long run.
> I think what confused me for the longest time (I'm a new NetBSD user) was
> that CURRENT is still being considered "1.6". Up until very recent, I've
> been trying to figure out what two letters 1.6.1 will lie between (i.e. is
> 1.6.1 between 1.6K and 1.6L? Or 1.6Q and 1.6R?)
> I think the CURRENT development should have been called 1.7 right after 1.6
> was branched. The branch can carry bug/security fixes -- thereby creating
> 1.6.1, 1.6.2, etc. The main branch would be 1.7 (and would still use letter
> suffixes to indicate incompatiblities without burning version numbers.)
> This would make it clear that my 1.6.1 machine is not running -current.
I think this scheme would work too, because at any one time the same
version number would be in use for only one version at a time. Another
option that has been floated was something like having current be 1.6.98.X
for now, and then 1.6.99.X when we're in the 2.0 release cycle. Then 2.0
comes out (from what was 1.6.99.final) and current's at 2.0.98.X.