Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>