From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri May 27 04:02:47 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA1B316A41C
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Fri, 27 May 2005 04:02:47 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from lists@natserv.com)
Received: from mail1.acecape.com (mail1.acecape.com [66.114.74.12])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4936743D48
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Fri, 27 May 2005 04:02:47 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from lists@natserv.com)
Received: from zoraida.natserv.net (p65-147.acedsl.com [66.114.65.147])
	by mail1.acecape.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j4R42kQ5028652;
	Fri, 27 May 2005 00:02:46 -0400
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 00:02:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Francisco Reyes <lists@natserv.com>
X-X-Sender: fran@zoraida.natserv.net
To: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org>
In-Reply-To: <42937D06.1070309@samsco.org>
Message-ID: <20050526235805.N5798@zoraida.natserv.net>
References: <3248.172.16.0.199.1116876092.squirrel@172.16.0.1>
	<42937D06.1070309@samsco.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Cc: Mike Jakubik <mikej@rogers.com>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Lifetime of FreeBSD branches
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code <freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 04:02:47 -0000

On Tue, 24 May 2005, Scott Long wrote:

> Again, please don't take the abrupt switch to 6.0 to mean that 5.x is
> flawed or that 6.x will also have a short lifespan.  The real purpose
> of the switch is nothing but positive; it'll keep us focused and prevent
> us from overreaching and overextending ourselves.  It's a very good
> and very postive strategy.

So why have a 6.X naming convention to begin with?
Why not just stay in 5.X name wise?

Is there a thread that sheds some light on that topic?
Is the goal to have a new major branch every 2 years?