On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 21:52:26 -0400
Chuck Yerkes <chuck+nbsd@2003.snew.com> sez:

 >Each major release (1.4, 1.5, 1.6) will be named for an
 >opera.  "The carmen series".  Each actual release will be
 >named for a character in the order in which they appear
 >on stage.  Most western operas can cover you for dozens
 >of subreleases.

 >This will serve to number the schemes as well as foist
 >culture and knowledge of the arts upon you troglodytes.

Nah, that will never work.  We _want_ a linear scheme, (d--m)it!!!
with _numbers_.  Preferably overloaded and tied to as many branches,
events, conditions, wishes, fatalities, crashes, and phases of the
moon we can find!!!  Every digit fraught with meaning!!!  Throw out
the man pages, it's all in the version number!!! Maybe we can create a
release string 10,000 digits long!!! With 20,000 ......  in it!!!!!!!!
Think of it!!!!!  Our chance for immortality!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Guinness
Book of Records stuff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Besides, too much
culture for these unwashed fellows.




On second thought, maybe just one . might do fine.  Only just arranged
so that .current is always one whole number bump ahead of .release.
No neophyte gets confused.  Only us.  You know, the perps.  Maybe,
just maybe, we can work it out as we go.  You fellows handle it.

On second thought, for all you guys that are just _dying_ to know what
number we'll give _stable_ 18 releases from now, let me pass on a
suggestion I heard in passing.  We use only whole numbers between
10,000 and 99,000, see.  Current is always ahead of .release, see.
But this is the kicker: we reserve all even prime numbers for
_.release_'s, see.  Plenty of gas for .current's. Plenty of numbers.
Very mathematical. Very cool.  Ultra modern.  Better than TeX's
3.14159.  Way cooler than using holidays to name releases. And we
_always_ know where we stand.

-later

-Mike