Subject: Re: Version Naming/Numbering
To: George Michaelson <email@example.com>
From: Jaka Jejcic <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/23/2004 10:03:52
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 04:23:16PM +1000, George Michaelson wrote:
> Confusing people is one thing.
> Breaking #if logic is another.
> Dealing with code is about a different kind of POLA than with people.
> When I find code won't make because of cpp problems, its very depressing. The track record for re-syncing changes into larger systems (X11?) isn't brilliant here. GCC for instance, could be expected to take a while to bed in a significant alteration of how >= logic works for tuning the outcome of that code-make process.
> I very much hope that you can come up with a fix which works for both code and people, but if not, I'd suggest that making it work for code matters more.
That is the logic I like. And since it now work for code, let's make people
accept it and it shall work for people too ;) --- and no changes neccessary.
But we must not forget that NetBSD-current is a different branch from -stable
and hence cannot be named comparatively, letters differentiate them flawlessly
now. If we just use numbers in order to compare them easily, we would break
major difference between them.
The idea of naming with just major numbers for new releases (like Solaris) is
great. We produce NetBSD-2 and develop further both -stable and -current.
Stable (if neccessary) produces minor numbers (2.1, 2.2,...) and -current
is just some other branch (say 2A, 2ZG or whatever) that is named completely
different until we decide it is ready for a release which is then NetBSD-3.
All in all I think we must respect the naming difference. What about users?
Well, when you start with NetBSD you should start with a release and when you
"progress" to -current you should be educated enough to understand what
current is and why it is named the way it is...