From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Oct 17 09:16:45 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id JAA09424
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 17 Oct 1996 09:16:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from brasil.moneng.mei.com (brasil.moneng.mei.com [151.186.109.160])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA09410
          for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Thu, 17 Oct 1996 09:16:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from jgreco@localhost) by brasil.moneng.mei.com (8.7.Beta.1/8.7.Beta.1) id LAA00616; Thu, 17 Oct 1996 11:15:29 -0500
From: Joe Greco <jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com>
Message-Id: <199610171615.LAA00616@brasil.moneng.mei.com>
Subject: Re: IP bugs in FreeBSD 2.1.5
To: dg@root.com
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 11:15:28 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <199610171406.HAA11240@root.com> from "David Greenman" at Oct 17, 96 07:06:19 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
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.

(drops to his knees and begins worshipping)  :-)

Please go, full steam ahead!

... JG