-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On Wednesday, October 1, 2003, at 08:31  PM, Christos Zoulas wrote:

> In article <200310011448.00870.marc@perforce.com>,
> Marc Tooley <marc@perforce.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday 01 October 2003 13:05, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 09:16:19AM -0700, netbsd99@sudog.com wrote:
>>>> I'm shocked. We're not going to go with version number 1.7?
>>>>
>>>> I always like the fact that we were still at version 1.6 while the
>>>> rest of the world was moving on towards version 9.8 or 12.3 so it'd
>>>> look good to the unwashed masses.
>>>
>>> The issue here is that with our current version numbering scheme:
>>> x.y.z, y is bumped for major releases and z for minor, bug-fix
>>> release. So x is never bumped, and will say at 1 forever. So just
>>> drop x, and start using 2 digit version numbers :)
>>
>> But, but.. I thought the fact we were still at 1.x.x was a simple
>> against-the-grain statement making light of the fact that everyone and
>> their dog bumps their major version numbers five or six times a year? 
>> I
>> thought it was a great nose-thumbing, personally. Otherwise we'd be at
>> 6.2 or so right now. Just feels wrong.
>>
>> I think if MP and SA can be forced into the stable (ha ha) that would
>> justify the move to 2.x.x, but let's still have the three version
>> numbers, I say. :)
>>
>> If it's bound to be 2.x, near as I can tell the following major
>> functionality has been added/modified:
>>
>> 1. Semi-functional MP
>> 2. Mostly functional scheduler activations
>> 3. Updated compiler
> 4. Posix semaphores
> 5. Siginfo support
> 6. Updated gdb
> 7. Working java under compat linux
> 8. Working native java

	Is this really going to be in NetBSD 2.0?  I know that FreeBSD just got
a working native JDK not to long ago.  I'm going to assume that the 
version
for NetBSD will be based on that.  Would that be correct?  Not to short 
change
the other additions, but no native Java is the only reason I develop at 
all on
another platform, that platform being OS X.  It would be ideal to keep 
the
workstation completely separate from the desktop.

<snip>

Ian P. Thomas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (Darwin)

iD8DBQE/e5gS2h8cNYpdcuoRAv8tAJ0b7vphnwDNXMiqv03NoXkJjLT/DQCdE+y4
ILz526iFoj1/3+Re9Vz2Q90=
=DFaa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----