Current-Users archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: is it 5.99.2 or 5.99.02 ?



On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 07:21:30AM -0800, Matt Thomas wrote:
>
> On Nov 15, 2008, at 6:19 AM, Bernd Ernesti wrote:
>
>> [Including matt who changed it to 5.99.01]
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 02:22:32PM +0100, Adam Hoka wrote:
>>> Zafer Aydo?an wrote:
>>>
>>>> hello list,
>>>>
>>>> in the past kernel bumps were notated like 4.99.1 .. 4.99.9
>>>> now I'm seeing 5.99.01, 5.99.02.
>>>>
>>>> Which one is correct ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers, Zafer.
>>>
>>> I'm also interested.
>>> file(1) still says 5.99.1.
>>>
>>> Was this change intentional?
>>
>> Matt, what was the reason to go to 5.99.01 instead of 5.99.1?
>
> The comment isn't really used so it's actually 5.99.1.  it'll back
> to two digits soon enough. :)

I bet stuff will break at 08.  Let's make .3 fo the next one.

-- 
Quentin Garnier - cube%cubidou.net@localhost - cube%NetBSD.org@localhost
"See the look on my face from staying too long in one place
[...] every time the morning breaks I know I'm closer to falling"
KT Tunstall, Saving My Face, Drastic Fantastic, 2007.

Attachment: pgphblcHxtCcw.pgp
Description: PGP signature



Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index