From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Mar 6 17:29:15 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id RAA21393 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 17:29:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from covina.lightside.com (covina.lightside.com [198.81.209.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA21376 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 17:29:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by covina.lightside.com (Smail3.1.28.1 #6) id m0tuUVk-0004I8C; Wed, 6 Mar 96 17:28 PST Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 17:28:52 -0800 (PST) From: Jake Hamby To: Terry Lambert cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" , mrl@teleport.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: When is 2.2 Estimated to be released? In-Reply-To: <199603061914.MAA11548@phaeton.artisoft.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk On Wed, 6 Mar 1996, Terry Lambert wrote: > > Uh, what exactly would 2.2 have, then, if none of the planned major > features made it in? > > Something like that should be called 2.1.1, not 2.2.0, IMO... At least it would have the improved VM code, Paul's new cool malloc(), better Linux emulation, and a newer ports collection. Even with no other features, this is at least deserving of 2.1.5, if not 2.2.0. Also, remember that -current has been a separate branch of the tree, with many improvements stretching back to six months before 2.1.0-RELEASE! Or we could do like Microsoft and wantonly bump version numbers at will. I know, let's call it FreeBSD 4.0 to keep it in version parity with Windows 95.. ;-) Recent MS examples: Office 95 (all programs were bumped to 7.0, even though Word was 6.0 and Powerpoint was 4.0 formerly), and Visual C++ (which went from 2.2 to 4.0 to keep it in parity with MFC).. The point I'm trying to make is that version numbers are ultimately arbitrary; I think it would be foolish to bump it up to 3.0-RELEASE if we didn't add any major features, but there's nothing stopping us. 2.2-RELEASE sounds perfectly fine. ---Jake