Subject: Re: NetBSD version naming - suggestion
To: Jeff Rizzo <riz@boogers.sf.ca.us>
From: Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@netbsd.org>
List: current-users
Date: 04/23/2003 15:00:26
On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, 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

Agreed. But I bet we will (most) all get used to it quick. :-)

> 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.
>
> In my mind it fits in well with an "alpha-testing" philosophy -
> snapshots off the trunk are still in development, so it's an "alpha"
> (or A,B,ZA, or what have you) of the next release.
>
> If this were to happen, I'd suggest that the best time to do
> it is after the next major release (2.0) - once the 2.0 branch
> is cut, change the version to 2.1A.  Or, go even further (which
> most likely has other problems, since I haven't actually thought
> it out), and make it 2.1A1, followed by 2.1A2, etc.  (the "second
> alpha release of 2.1")

I think just 2.1A would be fine. Since we don't have the same kind of
release methodology, we don't have clear points in time for numbered alpha
releases.

Also, 2.0 would be a good time to make the change. Partly as we will then
be re-arranging how we use digits in __NetBSD_Version__. :-)

Take care,

Bill