On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 04:35:06PM +0000, Matthias Scheler wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 10:29:52AM -0600, James Chacon wrote:
> > > Labelling it as a beta of the 2.0 release is even worse.
> > 
> > It's not a beta of 2.0. It's 2.0 "stable".
> > 
> > Where stable means "post 2.0, not yet 2.1" (same as it did for 1.6)
> 
> So "2.0.1_STABLE" would be much better because it has all the changes
> which were in NetBSD 2.0.1. And as soon as 2.0.2 is tagged it should
> be renamed to 2.0.2_STABLE.
> 

Neither of these makes any sense if they include more changes then were
in the relevant releases (which they do)....

The x.y.z releases have only a subset of changes the main branch holds. Calling
the main branch anything related to the x.y.z releases directly is wrong
as it's not the same thing.

James