On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Manuel Bouyer wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 10:14:22AM +0100, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>>> no, because 2.1 will be a patch release of 2.0, just like 1.6.1 was a patch
>>> release of 1.6. There will never be a 201rrpp00 for current, the next
>>> current
>>> will ne 399rrpp00
>>
>> Okay, got it now. So in short, we don't have any minor releases anymore?
>> We have just major releases and patches?
>
> Nothing changed in this area. Previously we had 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, ... 1.6 for
> major release (the second number was bumped) and 1.x.1, 1.x.2, ... for
> patch releases. The first number (1) was never changed so it was useless,
> and was droped.

(Oh, and I forgot to mention, I remember when the first digit was still 
zero (0) as well...)

> We go from a 3-digit numbering scheme to a 2-digit, but it
> doesn't change anything because one of the 3 digit was never changed

We seems to have a different opinion on that. :-)
I've been through three different first digits while using NetBSD.
And *then* they changed the numbering scheme, and went to a two-number 
scheme.

 	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