On Fri, 25 Apr 2003, Luke Mewburn wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 09:55:00PM -0400, Andrew Brown wrote:
>   | so we're currently at 1.6R, which will lead to 2.0 (followed by 2.0.1,
>   | 2.0.2, etc, as needed), at which point current becomes 2.1A (followed
>   | by 2.1B and 2.1C, etc), and when we're ready, 2.2 gets branched, at
>   | which point current becomes 2.3A, etc.
>
> here's my take:
>
> when we branch 2.0, it's identification becomes "2.0_BETA1".
> as the branch stabilizes, it goes to
> 	2.0_BETA2 ...  2.0_BETAn
> 	2.0_RC1 ... 2.0_RCn
> 	2.0
> (this is what would happen anyway, and is what occurred in 1.6)
>
> 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)

Uhm, when was that announced? I know the next version's 2.0, but I hadn't
heard we were following it with 3.0... ??

Modulo "_ALPHA" and 3.0 vs 2.1, I agree what you describe is probably the
clearest thing to do.

Take care,

Bill