Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 21:17:14 +0200 (MET DST) From: J Wunsch <j@uriah.heep.sax.de> To: rkw@dataplex.net (Richard Wackerbarth) Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, rgrimes@GndRsh.aac.dev.com Subject: Re: Re(2): Re(2): The naming of branches Message-ID: <199606101917.VAA05365@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <n1377732754.24577@Richard Wackerbarth> from Richard Wackerbarth at "Jun 10, 96 06:55:22 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Richard Wackerbarth wrote: > I my discussion with Rodney Grimmes about the history of the naming > conventions in the cvs tree, I commented that I thought that the name "2_1" > was more appropriate than "2_1_0" for the "head" of the 2.1 branch because > that branch includes 2.1.0, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, etc. This might be true, but we have already once changed our paradigm (between 2.0 and 2.0.5 -- from RELEASE_X_Y to RELENG_X_Y_Z), and changing it too often is IMHO causing more confusion than clarity. -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606101917.VAA05365>