Hi Rob!

In message <9611041114.ZM8480@warhol>
          Robert Black <r.black@ic.ac.uk> wrote:

[I shortened the quotes as nobody did before]
> How about a naming scheme such that RiscBSD based on NetBSD 1.2 would have the
> following designations:
> 
> NetBSD release type    RiscBSD release type    name
> 
> current                current (alpha)         1.2a-current
> beta                   current                 1.2b-current
> release                current                 1.2r-current
> release                beta                    1.2r-beta
> release                release                 1.2r-release or 1.2-release
> current                release                 1.2a-release or 1.2-stable
> 
> We could also possibly add an extra minor for RiscBSD use.

I think that's too complicated.
Why not just say that there are still known bugs in RiscBSD which shouldn't be
in a release version?

Consequently, RiscBSD shouldn't use the NetBSD release scheme then because
something shouldn't be called 1.2-Release if there are serious known bugs in
it. But I think this is also a problem for other ports.

Many of the above combination won't live long either (I expect that RiscBSD
1.2-beta will not stay on the ftp server much longer).
The last line doesn't make sense at all IMHO because you can't base something
release-like on a moving target like NetBSD-current.
The best idea for this is probably another minor number, because we would more
or less cut a release tree for RiscBSD 1.2.1 from NetBSD-current at a specific
date.

But let's be realistic, what changes will be necessary from RiscBSD 1.2-Release
in the near future? There will probably be nothing else but newer better
kernels so why would we need an extra naming scheme, people are aware that
they're new anyway.
X is probably a different thing but why not name this independently?
If you think that RiscBSD = NetBSD + X11 we really need a completely different
naming scheme, but I wouldn't like to see that.

Markus