Subject: Re: NetBSD version naming - suggestion
To: Jeff Rizzo <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Bill Studenmund <email@example.com>
Date: 04/23/2003 15:00:26
On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, Jeff Rizzo wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 08:27:17PM +0300, Arto Huusko wrote:
> > And while I'm here, I could just as well say my opinion on this: I think
> > bumbing -current's version to "just_released + 1" is a good idea. So,
> > we'd be now at 1.7R. And I don't think it's a problem if it is not known
> > beforehand what the actual release will be called. If there won't be
> > 1.7, fine. 1.7ZZZA just becomes 2.0 then (and -current 2.1A).
> I have to say, though this would confuse _me_ at first, because
> I'm used to the existing scheme, I'm sure it would make much more
Agreed. But I bet we will (most) all get used to it quick. :-)
> sense to new users. I know it's been discussed before and didn't
> receive such a great reception, I think it would do a lot
> to alleviate the "what do you mean 1.6.1 isn't an upgrade
> from 1.6Q?" factor.
> In my mind it fits in well with an "alpha-testing" philosophy -
> snapshots off the trunk are still in development, so it's an "alpha"
> (or A,B,ZA, or what have you) of the next release.
> If this were to happen, I'd suggest that the best time to do
> it is after the next major release (2.0) - once the 2.0 branch
> is cut, change the version to 2.1A. Or, go even further (which
> most likely has other problems, since I haven't actually thought
> it out), and make it 2.1A1, followed by 2.1A2, etc. (the "second
> alpha release of 2.1")
I think just 2.1A would be fine. Since we don't have the same kind of
release methodology, we don't have clear points in time for numbered alpha
Also, 2.0 would be a good time to make the change. Partly as we will then
be re-arranging how we use digits in __NetBSD_Version__. :-)