On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Greywolf wrote:

> This is not how I read it, which was:
>
> 2.0 gets released, -current becomes 2.1A, next release is 2.1...
> 2.1 gets released, -current becomes 2.2A, next release is 2.2....
>
> This is exactly backwards from what we have now.

That's the way I parsed the proposal, too, and I don't see how that's
any clearer to users. Worse, it means you'd have to mask and do
arithmetic on __NetBSD_Version__ to get anything useful out of it.

> Anything with a .0 in the fourth place (i.e. null third and/or fourth
> digits, 1.6, 1.6.1, 2.0, 2.0.1...) would be considered a release, while
> -current would be, for 2.0, 2.0.0.1, 2.0.0.2, 2.0.0.3, etc. , and then
> we release 2.0.1 or whatever, at which point -current turns into
> 2.0.1.[1..n].
>
> Or Did I Miss Something, Here? [TM]

That represents things as exactly backwards from the actual state of
affairs, as if current derived from a branch, rather than vice-versa.

Of all the proposals, the only one that improves on the current
one (IMO), is to *not* bump uname, and let LKM's get their needed
information some other way.

Frederick