On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, Richard Rauch wrote:

> Johnny,
>
> 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

Johnny Billquist                  || "I'm on a bus
                                   ||  on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt@update.uu.se           ||  Reading murder books
pdp is alive!                     ||  tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol