From owner-freebsd-current  Sat Sep 16 22:45:17 1995
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id WAA28394
          for current-outgoing; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 22:45:17 -0700
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [192.216.222.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id WAA28387
          for <current@FreeBSD.org>; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 22:45:15 -0700
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id WAA18561; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 22:45:08 -0700
To: jdl@chromatic.com
cc: current@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: Release numbering 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 17 Sep 1995 00:28:23 CDT."
             <199509170528.AAA14969@chrome.onramp.net> 
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 1995 22:45:08 -0700
Message-ID: <18559.811316708@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> relief, take a break, and then be real gung-ho about 2.2.  Why not
> just let everyone work on 2.2 until it too gets to a reasonably
> stable point and then call it "stable" at the same time introduce 2.3
> as the next development release.  Just pipeline it, not leapfrog it?

I can see that working, modulo a -STABLE or -DEVEL tag appended so
people know which number is which.  If we're not going to go for an
even/odd scheme then something else needs to be evolved to keep them
straight.

						Jordan