Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 21:42:34 -0400 From: Eric Rivas <ericr@sourmilk.net> To: "Daniel M. Kurry" <gh@over-yonder.net> Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Version Release numbers Message-ID: <20030610214234.1a47d8ed.ericr@sourmilk.net> In-Reply-To: <20030610052338.GB14895@over-yonder.net> References: <000901c32eeb$4b15d4a0$0200000a@fireball> <200306101412.18212.jrhoden@unimelb.edu.au> <20030610005022.289b01b9.ericr@sourmilk.net> <20030610052338.GB14895@over-yonder.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 10 Jun 2003 00:23:38 -0500 "Daniel M. Kurry" <gh@over-yonder.net> wrote: > Eric Rivas said something like: > > Does anyone else think it's a good idea that 5.1 should have been > > called 5.0.1, then once 5.x goes stable, start with 5.1? That way > > we keep consistent in that every x.0 version is considered > > development/test release. > > Don't we have -CURRENT precisely for channeling development? It's not really massive development per se, I mean there isn't any overly drastic changes. Anyway, it was just a thought, and I know we got rid of the second . in version numbers for a reason. I also understand why the current version scheme is the way it is, like I said, it's just a thought and I would be very amazed if anyone thought my idea was a good one. > > dan > > > -- > > Eric Rivas <ericr@sourmilk.net> > > -- Eric Rivas <ericr@sourmilk.net>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030610214234.1a47d8ed.ericr>