From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Oct 17 07:07:26 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id HAA02024
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 17 Oct 1996 07:07:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from root.com (implode.root.com [198.145.90.17])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id HAA02019
          for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 17 Oct 1996 07:07:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by root.com (8.7.6/8.6.5) with SMTP id HAA11240; Thu, 17 Oct 1996 07:06:19 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199610171406.HAA11240@root.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: implode.root.com: Host localhost [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol
To: Narvi <narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee>
cc: Joe Greco <jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: IP bugs in FreeBSD 2.1.5 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 17 Oct 1996 11:06:21 +0300."
             <Pine.BSF.3.91.961017105145.17620B-100000@haldjas.folklore.ee> 
From: David Greenman <dg@root.com>
Reply-To: dg@root.com
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 07:06:19 -0700
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>3.0R? wouldn't it be a too high increment in the version number? In that 
>way we will soon be at FreeBSD 4.3 (and 4.4) release. How about 2.4? It 
>would allow enough of growing place for 2.2 to evolve into ultrastable 
>2.3 (if it stays around for that long). As we seem to be using numbers of 
>the x.y.z kind we should think too much about x. Or are we going to 
>undergo some *MAJOR* change?

   SMP.

-DG

David Greenman
Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project