Dennis <dennis@etinc.com> writes:
> Is 1.4 going to be so different from 1.3.3 that we should bypass what is
> currently
> stable?

1.4 is definitely going to be significantly different than 1.3.x, but
i'd say "do 1.3.x rather than -current," if you're inclined to do
either.

Sane people don't upgrade to -current or to a new release immediately
when it comes out, and so i expect people to be running 1.3.x until
mid next year, at least.


> Its only a minor release (unless you use a different numbering
> system then
> the rest of the world), so why are you implying that it would be a waste of
> time to
> port to 1.3.3? 

NetBSD's "minor releases" typically have a lot more change in them
than many systems' minor releases.  E.g. 1.4 will have a different VM
system than 1.3, in addition to a whole lot of other changes.

Really, many systems would use a major number bump where NetBSD uses a
minor number bump, but NetBSD hasn't historically gone in for doing
much in the way of 'teeny' bug fix releases (the 1.3-family being the
sole exception, currently).


> Also, if 1.4 is due out in 2 months, why are you doing a 1.3.3? It make
> little sense.

(1) "mid january" (which i think is probably a bit early) is actually
closer to three months away than it is to 2.  8-)

(2) there are important bug fixes (security and otherwise) that people
using 1.3.x could use.

(3) see above, re: what i think sane people do.  That means that
there's at least 6 or 8 more months 'life' in 1.3.x.  Few people might
install it after 1.4 comes out, but people will still be running it
for months (or years, knowing how little some people like to upgrade
8-).  Upgrading to a new 1.3.x release, to get bug fixes, etc., is
much, much easier than going to 1.4 (or later).


cgd
-- 
Chris Demetriou - cgd@netbsd.org - http://www.netbsd.org/People/Pages/cgd.html
Disclaimer: Not speaking for NetBSD, just expressing my own opinion.