Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 18:56:58 +0300 (EET DST) From: Narvi <narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee> To: David Greenman <dg@Root.COM> Cc: Joe Greco <jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: IP bugs in FreeBSD 2.1.5 Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.961017183709.25473A-100000@haldjas.folklore.ee> In-Reply-To: <199610171406.HAA11240@root.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 17 Oct 1996, David Greenman wrote: > >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. SMP, kernel multithreading, scheduling classes, ELF, etc. But as I come to think about it will SMP have to wait until 3.0 or will it be introduced in some 2.x series? It seems 2.2 took such a long time. How long will it take until 3.0 comes out? As long? Less time? More time? I am afraid at least as much. Not that calling the next tree 2.4 would make much difference, I just dislike *huge* jumps in numbering. I would like 2.4 or (which sound better,) 2.5. But that's my personal taste. Sander PS. Tough it would be cool to sit in front of the monitor and watch the web based kernel perfomance monitor show how much time the kernel spends in which threads. > > -DG > > David Greenman > Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.961017183709.25473A-100000>