Subject: Re: NetBSD version naming - suggestion
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Ben Harris <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/24/2003 15:28:41
In article <20030424141111.GN18587@mewburn.net> you write:
>after the time of the 2.0 branch, current becomes "3.0_ALPHA1".
>when we need a bump for kernel bump in current, crank to 3.0_ALPHA2, (etc)
Ugh. "alpha" to me implies a test release, i.e. that there will be no more
features added before the final release. It's also bad in that you have to
distinguish between NetBSD/alpha 2.0 and NetBSD 2.0_ALPHA.
>once 2.0 is released, the netbsd-2-0 branch is ID-ed as "2.0_STABLE".
If you're going to have "_STABLE", how about "_UNSTABLE" to go with it?
That would have the rather silly effect of making this list