From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 9 22:49:10 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE09116A4CE for ; Mon, 9 Aug 2004 22:49:10 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp.des.no (flood.des.no [217.116.83.31]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25A4A43D48 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 2004 22:49:10 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: by smtp.des.no (Pony Express, from userid 666) id B606D530D; Tue, 10 Aug 2004 00:49:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from dwp.des.no (des.no [80.203.228.37]) by smtp.des.no (Pony Express) with ESMTP id BC7E6530C; Tue, 10 Aug 2004 00:49:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: by dwp.des.no (Postfix, from userid 2602) id 74EA2B872; Tue, 10 Aug 2004 00:49:01 +0200 (CEST) To: Chris References: <41179955.5020508@makeworld.com> <4117FB52.4050504@makeworld.com> From: des@des.no (=?iso-8859-1?q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?=) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 00:49:01 +0200 In-Reply-To: <4117FB52.4050504@makeworld.com> (racerx@makeworld.com's message of "Mon, 09 Aug 2004 17:31:46 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on flood.des.no X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.63 cc: FreeBSD - Chat Subject: Re: 5.3R Schedule X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 22:49:10 -0000 Chris writes: > I was pointing out that yes - there is going to be a 4.11. Perhaps I > should have articulated it. The version numbering scheme is odd. There is nothing odd about it. > For example, there is a 5.2 and a 5.2.1 No. There is only 5.2.1. 5.2 was considered unpublishable for a variety of reasons and 5.2.1 was released to replace it before any vendors had actually started printing CDs. Anyone trying to cvsup 5.2 (RELENG_5_2) will get 5.2.1. > Perhaps the release after 4.9 should have followed the same pattern - > It would have been nice to see it progress something like this: > > 4.8, 4.9, 4.9.1, 4.9.2 and so on. > > The 4.9, 4.10 and soon to come 4.11 RELEASES will likely confuse the > new users to FreeBSD. Why would anyone be confused by the fact that the successors to 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9 are 4.10 and 4.11? (4.6 actually ended up being named 4.6.2, much for the same reasons as 5.2 ended up as 5.2.1, but you get the idea) DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no