Subject: Re: NetBSD version naming - suggestion
To: None <>
From: Ben Harris <>
List: current-users
Date: 04/24/2003 15:28:41
In article <> 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

Ben Harris