Subject: Re: NetBSD version naming - suggestion
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Luke Mewburn <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/25/2003 00:11:11
On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 09:55:00PM -0400, Andrew Brown wrote:
| >> And while I'm here, I could just as well say my opinion on this: I think
| >> bumbing -current's version to "just_released + 1" is a good idea. So,
| >> we'd be now at 1.7R. And I don't think it's a problem if it is not known
| >> beforehand what the actual release will be called. If there won't be
| >> 1.7, fine. 1.7ZZZA just becomes 2.0 then (and -current 2.1A).
| >Yeah, it probably would be the cleanest.
| 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)
once 2.0 is released, the netbsd-2-0 branch is ID-ed as "2.0_STABLE".
when its ready for the next "minor patch" release, it would change
to "2.1_BETA1", (etc)
when 3.0 is branched as netbsd-3-0, it changes to "3.0_BETA1" and
-current becomes "4.0_ALPHA1", and so it goes ...