From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Mar 14 08:13:33 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id IAA15308
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 14 Mar 1996 08:13:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from expo.x.org (expo.x.org [198.112.45.11])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA15295
          for <hackers@freefall.FreeBSD.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 1996 08:13:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exalt.x.org by expo.x.org id AA04444; Thu, 14 Mar 96 11:11:33 -0500
Received: from localhost by exalt.x.org id QAA22293; Thu, 14 Mar 1996 16:11:30 GMT
Message-Id: <199603141611.QAA22293@exalt.x.org>
To: hackers@freefall.FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: new malloc/libc... 
In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 14 Mar 1996 08:31:39 EDT.
             <199603141531.IAA09264@rocky.sri.MT.net> 
Organization: X Consortium
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 11:11:30 EDT
From: "Kaleb S. KEITHLEY" <kaleb@x.org>
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk


> Jordan K. Hubbard writes:
> > > I think you misunderstand.  The next release of FreeBSD will be 2.1.5,
> > 
> > Really?  News to me!  :-)
> > 
> > David and I have been assuming 2.1.1 as the proposed release number
> > ever since the beginning, though 2.1.5 wouldn't particularly phase
> > me I guess.  Hmmmmmm.
> 
> It makes more sense to have a .5 release to follow convention, but in
> any case I was attempting to communicate that the next release would be
> different from 2.1.

It was a very strange convention to go from 1.1.0 to 1.1.5, and from
2.0.0 to 2.0.5. Makes me wonder what was in 1.1.[1234] and 2.0.[1234].
and why weren't they released to the public. Almost looks like there
were aborted versions that weren't released, which could cast a certain
amount of FUD over the whole thing.

(And yes, inquiring minds want to know where MS-Windows NT 3.[234] and
Mac System 7.[234]!)

--

Kaleb KEITHLEY