From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Jun 10 16:26:47 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id QAA19773 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 16:26:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from DATAPLEX.NET (SHARK.DATAPLEX.NET [199.183.109.241]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA19745 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 16:26:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 199.183.109.242 by DATAPLEX.NET with SMTP (MailShare 1.0fc5); Mon, 10 Jun 1996 18:25:44 -0600 Message-ID: Date: 10 Jun 1996 18:25:33 -0500 From: "Richard Wackerbarth" Subject: Re(2): Re(2): Re(2): The naming of branches To: "hackers@FreeBSD.org" , "Joerg Wunsch" X-Mailer: Mail*Link PT/Internet 1.6.0 Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > 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. Did you read the rest of it? Rodney explained why you went to X-Y-Z. I have no problem with that. However, I still suggest that "2_2_X" will serve every function that I have seen presented and still avoid the disorientation that "2_2_0" causes after there is a 2_2_0_RELEASE and development continues on the 2_2 branch. -- Richard Wackerbarth rkw@dataplex.net -- ...computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh only 1/2 tons. -- Popular Mechanics, March 1949