On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Andrew Brown 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. Worse, it means you'd have to mask and do
> >arithmetic on __NetBSD_Version__ to get anything useful out of it.
>
> not only that, but afaict, it reverses the meaning of a few of the
> digits in the __NetBSD_Version)) value.

No, we change how the digits are used so that we maintain chronology. :-)

Take care,

Bill