Subject: Re: netbsd-2-0-RELEASE
To: Richard Rauch <email@example.com>
From: Johnny Billquist <bqt@Update.UU.SE>
Date: 12/02/2004 17:57:30
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, Richard Rauch wrote:
> I think that your comment is wrong in one detail: 2.1 will be a
> patch-release to 2.0. It will be to 2.0 what 1.6.1 was to 1.6.
> So there should be no new functionality in 2.1 relative to 2.0
> (hence relative to 2.99.<x> for pre-3.0 -current).
> So a 2.1 release having functionality not in a 2.99.<something>
> -current is about as likely as 1.6.1 having functionality that
> is absent in some post-1.6 -current versions.
> That is my understanding.
Hmm, you might be right. I might have misunderstood things.
That would mean we'll now start making new major releases every six months
or so. Hey, we'll hit NetBSD 10.0 in about 5 years. From being the system
most conservative about calling something a new major release, we'll lead
the pack. :-)
> I never saw the old scheme as broken, so I was not anxious to see
> it fixed, but at least the problem that you are describing does
> not seem to be introduced by the new scheme. (I also think that
> linearizing a branching tree is not the best of ideas, even if
> in practice the NetBSD tree is close to a line and all anomalies
> can be avoided.)
You might be right, in which case we'll not have any problems.
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: firstname.lastname@example.org || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol