On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 12:45:28PM -0700, Jeff Rizzo wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 08:27:17PM +0300, Arto Huusko wrote:
> 
> > And while I'm here, I could just as well say my opinion on this: I think
> > bumbing -current's version to "just_released + 1" is a good idea. So,
> > we'd be now at 1.7R. And I don't think it's a problem if it is not known
> > beforehand what the actual release will be called. If there won't be
> > 1.7, fine. 1.7ZZZA just becomes 2.0 then (and -current 2.1A).
> 
> I have to say, though this would confuse _me_ at first, because
> I'm used to the existing scheme, I'm sure it would make much more
> sense to new users.  I know it's been discussed before and didn't
> receive such a great reception, I think it would do a lot
> to alleviate the "what do you mean 1.6.1 isn't an upgrade
> from 1.6Q?" factor.

Though i agree completely that it would make things easier to understand
there is one little problem which i think current scheme does better.
Now we tag -current version by the last release it has branched from.
So there is never a question what number the current should have. But when
we would change to a system where -current is named "in advance" we
don't know whether to name it 1.7A or 2.0A of something similar. But when
we solve this, I think we got the best of both worlds.

jj