Subject: Re: NetBSD version naming - suggestion
To: Frederick Bruckman <email@example.com>
From: Michael G. Schabert <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/24/2003 19:51:28
At 2:34 PM -0500 4/24/03, Frederick Bruckman wrote:
>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.
Actually, it's pretty obvious why it would be clearer to
Basically, NetBSD peeps fall into 2 categories...(1) end
users/non-developers/ Mac/Windows people, and (2) Unix
geeks/developers. For the purposes of this discussion, I will totally
ignore (2) because, as long as there is consistency, they will be
able to grok the naming scheme into a function such that their brain
can give an lineage to the versions (as long as we ignore the
inconsistent 1.4.3A ;-).
As for (1), they are mostly coming from a MacOS/PeeCee background.
And that background is, and has always been, 0.99, 1.0, 1.1d1, 1.1a1,
1.1b1, 1.1fc1, 1.1. What is quoted above is the closet to this "norm"
as anything that has been discussed. Also, as I use DEC AlphaStation,
I have always disliked versions of NetBSD using the "alpha"
designation, but it is consistent with everything else (just no other
OS I use has a port-alpha).
Just my thoughts,
Bikers don't *DO* taglines.