On Fri, 25 Apr 2003, Luke Mewburn wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 03:33:06PM -0700, Bill Studenmund wrote:
>   | On Fri, 25 Apr 2003, Luke Mewburn wrote:
>   |
>   | > (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... ??
>
> It was an idea floated around a while ago.
> If you like, s/2.1/2.0.1/ and s/3.0/2.1/ in the proposal, to not get stuck
> on the "what to call the next + 1 release" part of the idea :)

Then yes, we're in agreement. :-)

>   | Modulo "_ALPHA" and 3.0 vs 2.1, I agree what you describe is probably the
>   | clearest thing to do.
>
> Ok, I take the point about "_ALPHA" and "/alpha" raised by Ben Harris
> (and I don't know why I forgot about that, since I was one of the
> releng pushing for removing "_ALPHA" in the release cycle naming :);
> how about:
> 	3.0_CURRENT1
> then?  (or "2.1_CURRENT1")

Hmm... This is digressing, but I think something like 2.1A_CURRENT would
be better. It's more in line with (what I think) we are doing with _STABLE
now; _RELEASE/_STABLE/_CURRENT are just suffixes. The naming is similar to
what we have now, and "_CURRENT" makes it BLUNTLY clear it's current. :-)

Take care,

Bill