Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 20:02:13 +0300 (EET DST) From: Narvi <narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee> To: Joe Greco <jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: IP bugs in FreeBSD 2.1.5 Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.961017195631.26482A-100000@haldjas.folklore.ee> In-Reply-To: <199610171612.LAA00599@brasil.moneng.mei.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 17 Oct 1996, Joe Greco wrote: > > > > That's why the 2.2R thing seems like such a good idea. If a new "-stable" > > > is created at 2.2R, and "-current" goes its merry way on to 3.0R, that > > > gives people like me a good solid point at which to start, and a path to > > > follow for the next year or two while 2.2.XR becomes as stable as 2.1.5R. > > > > 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? > > I do not care too much about version numbering. Given the manner in which > versions have been numbered, I do not see a need for x.y.z release > numbering, and would settle for x.y... but it is really all pretty > arbitrary, in my opinion. I do, but perhaps it just one of the peculiarities of me :-( > > I do not care if the core team decides that -current after such a fork would > be headed towards 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3.0, or 10.0.. :-) I would detest FreeBSD jumping to 10.0. I don't like it jumping to 3.0 and would like to see the next tree be of the 2.x lineage - be it 2.3, 2.4 or 2.5. But I think that's my personal problem. Got to live with that. Sander > > ... JG >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.961017195631.26482A-100000>