From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 9 20:50:39 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C3B937B40C for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 20:50:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mallard.mail.pas.earthlink.net (mallard.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.48]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C2D143F75 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 20:50:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rsidd@online.fr) Received: from user-0cev158.cable.mindspring.com ([24.239.132.168] helo=greenrondo.a.la.turk) by mallard.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19Pa9a-0004PV-00 for freebsd-chat@freebsd.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 20:50:35 -0700 Received: (qmail 5348 invoked by uid 1002); 10 Jun 2003 03:50:29 -0000 Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 23:50:29 -0400 From: Rahul Siddharthan To: Craig Reyenga Message-ID: <20030610035029.GA5213@online.fr> Mail-Followup-To: Craig Reyenga , freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <000901c32eeb$4b15d4a0$0200000a@fireball> X-Operating-System: Linux 2.4.20 i686 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Version Release numbers X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 03:50:39 -0000 Craig Reyenda wrote: > I was just wondering what people think of changing the FreeBSD release > numbering system. Here is my idea: > > -FreeBSD 4.X is stable right now. > -FreeBSD 5.0,5.1(maybe 5.2) are not-so-stable. > -FreeBSD 5.3 is supposed to be. > > Perhaps all odd major numbers should be considered development versions. 5.3 > would instead be called 6.0, I think you're thinking of the linux system. It won't actually solve anything. One reason FreeBSD 5.0 and 5.1 are not too stable (apart from the ambitious changes in 5-CURRENT) is that they haven't had enough realworld exposure; if you declare that they're a "development release", you'll only postpone the wide exposure to 6.0, which will then have the same problems. Linux suffers from this too, only more so. It took until 2.4.10 or so for the 2.4 kernel series to start to become stable -- FreeBSD normally "gets there" by the x.1 or x.2 release. Linus is already talking of releasing a 2.6.0-test series, when 2.5 is clearly nowhere near ready yet, simply because more people will test it that way. Rahul