Subject: Re: netbsd-2-0-RELEASE
To: Manuel Bouyer <email@example.com>
From: Johnny Billquist <bqt@Update.UU.SE>
Date: 12/03/2004 12:42:35
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
>>> 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
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