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
9. /dev/ksyms
10. topdown vm on some platforms
11. dynamic sysctl tree

>
>Any other major changes? Are #1 and #2 in a state to be released as 
>stable? I've been reading some messages suggesting that there are 
>certain hard problems that won't be solved anytime soon without 
>significant effort on the part of Some Brave Soul Out There.
>
>How about a state-of-the-kernel address for those of us who don't follow 
>it close enough to be aware of the more significant modifications?
>
>:-)
>