From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Apr 9 20:48: 2 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from nanguo.chalmers.com.au (gateway.chalmers.com.au [203.1.96.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2525A37B422 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 20:47:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from robert@chalmers.com.au) Received: from carbon (carbon.chalmers.com.au [203.1.96.26]) by nanguo.chalmers.com.au (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id f3A3npU14469 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 13:49:51 +1000 (EST) From: "Robert" To: Subject: why not... RE: Why not stick with [STABLE] [Was: RE: Releases] Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 13:51:06 +1000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3AD27F41.42FCB6BC@babbleon.org> Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Why not use like; Release Build Date 4.3 Build 020501 4.3 Build 030501 4.3 Build 100601 ......... 4.3 Build 200601 ......... 5.0 Build 201201 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG > [mailto:owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of The Babbler > Sent: Tuesday, 10 April 2001 1:34 PM > To: Yann Sommer > Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG > Subject: Re: Why not stick with [STABLE] [Was: RE: Releases] > > > Yann Sommer wrote: > > > > Heya all, > > > > I've been following this thread with some extra attention, > since I remember > > beeing new to FreeBSD and complaining about a dedicated Server > I ordered, > > running BETA. It is just, as has been mentioned a few times > before on this > > list, against what other programms use for version naming. > > But, in my humble opinion I think the easiest solution has not been > > mentioned here before. Why not just suffix the old version > description to > > stable, like: > > > > 4.3-STABLE-BETA > > 4.3-STABLE-RC > > 4.3-STABLE-FINAL > > > > or something in that direction. The essential word "STABLE" > which gives the > > newer users the trust in a system (allthough it's kind of stupid after > > knowing the exact naming, but heh, nobody gets born with all > knowledge ;), > > and at the same time sticks with the naming BSD users are used to. > > > > Something in that direction might be good, but the proposal in & of > itself wouldn't work if BSD sticks with the current scheme whereby the > number isn't incremented 'til the first Beta, becuase the entire > sequence would then be: > > 4.3-STABLE-BETA > 4.3-STABLE-RC > 4.3-STABLE-FINAL > 4.3-STABLE (huh??? Now we get questions later) > 4.4-STABLE-BETA > > but maybe: > > 4.3-STABLE-ENCHANCED or 4.3-STABLE-POSTFINAL or something; or > > or > > 4.3-STABLE-BETA > 4.3-STABLE-RC > 4.3-STABLE-FINAL > 4.4-STABLE-DEVEL (bump up the # at the beginning of "ordinary > time" rather than the end) > 4.4-STABLE-BETA > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message