> Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 09:38:57 +0000 (GMT)
> From: Neil Hoggarth <neil.hoggarth@physiol.ox.ac.uk>
> 
> On Wed, 30 Oct 1996, Markus Baeurle wrote:
> 
>> ...
>> Normally, the 1.2-beta should be the test for 1.2-release.
>> ...
> 
> A lot of what Markus says is very valid, however there is one major
> misconception which I think needs clearing up. As I understand it, the
> "beta" and "release" designations that Mark uses refer to the underlying
> NetBSD source code base, *not* the ARM32 port specifically nor RiscBSD as
> a package. The whole of the NetBSD system has just gone through the 
> 1.2 beta/1.2 release cycle, and what Mark puts up for FTP as the "1.2 beta 
> sets" or the "1.2 release sets" are his build of the NetBSD source code 
> releases that are so designated.

Yes, that is correct.

> With all due respect to Mark and his considerable accomplishments, I think
> that it is fair to say that the NetBSD/arm32 kernel and the associated
> "RiscBSD" installation tools, bootloader, etc, are still very much "work
> in progress" rather than a finished product. 

Do we need a different version numbering scheme for RiscBSD?

E.g. RiscBSD 1.00-beta/1.2-release (i.e. based on 1.2-release of NetBSD).

Or would that cause too much confusion?

I myself do not think too much of the fact that RiscBSD is a port
of NetBSD since there is so much else in question here.

Kjetil B.