Subject: Re: NetBSD version naming - suggestion
To: Luke Mewburn <email@example.com>
From: Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/24/2003 15:33:06
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
> (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.