From owner-freebsd-stable Sun Mar 4 9:28:20 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mail2.uniserve.com (mail2.uniserve.com [204.244.156.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BEC937B71A for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 09:28:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tom@uniserve.com) Received: from mail2.uniserve.com ([204.244.156.10]) by mail2.uniserve.com with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1) id 14ZcIh-0008tq-00; Sun, 04 Mar 2001 09:28:07 -0800 Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 09:28:07 -0800 (PST) From: Tom X-Sender: tom@athena.uniserve.ca To: Andrew Hesford Cc: FreeBSD-stable Subject: Re: Version Numbering In-Reply-To: <20010304103449.A8042@cec.wustl.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sun, 4 Mar 2001, Andrew Hesford wrote: > What with all the version inflation going on in the Linux world, I have > an idea for FreeBSD. > > Forget 4.3-STABLE. Skip to 4.4. And rather than calling it FreeBSD > 4.4-STABLE, call it 4.4FreeBSD. That way, we can show off the roots of > FreeBSD and make it sound cool, too! This discussion already occured over a year ago. Use the archive. > Or, we can stop people from asking, "Why is RedHat in version 7, > Mandrake almost in version 8, and FreeBSD only in 4?" (assuming RedHat > users even know what FreeBSD is). Just call the next release FreeBSD > 10.3-STABLE or FreeBSD 2001-STABLE. Are people seriously fooled by version numbers? I've never seen anyone on this list ask why the version number wasn't bigger. > -- > Andrew Hesford > ajh3@chmod.ath.cx Tom To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message