--wxDdMuZNg1r63Hyj
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 12:23:49AM -0500, John Franklin wrote:
> On Dec 8, 2003, at 1:46 PM, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> >I don't think we need to do it for a few more years yet, but I think=20
> >it is
> >something we can now tackle (right) when we choose to.
>=20
> We intend to bump the major version of the OS with the next release, so=
=20
> *if* we are going to bump the major version of libc in the near future=20
> it would make sense to do it with the major bump of the OS.  From 1.x=20
> to 2.x, people expect there might be issues, such as significant=20
> libraries being rev'd.  It may not be something we *need* to do, but if=
=20
> we do it now, we won't need to do it again until NetBSD 3.0.
>=20
> It's something we can do.  It's something we want to do.  It's=20
> something we have the opportunity to do.

I'm not so sure. While I am championing the idea that we _can_ bump the=20
version, I think we 1) don't need to yet, and 2) want to do it with more=20
lead time. Folks are getting anxious for 2.0 to come out. That's not the=20
time to start a libc version bump. The right time is for us to decide we=20
need to do it and put bits in place for it. Then do a release. And only=20
_then_ do we bump the version.

Take care,

Bill

--wxDdMuZNg1r63Hyj
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQE/1l0dWz+3JHUci9cRAkdWAJ9+fyd37kyAG+vbREuiTQ8lm5CdQgCfRUkI
8EHd6kIYMS6COtnd6xlUwbE=
=OwlW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--wxDdMuZNg1r63Hyj--