Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 00:50:22 -0400 From: Eric Rivas <ericr@sourmilk.net> To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Version Release numbers Message-ID: <20030610005022.289b01b9.ericr@sourmilk.net> In-Reply-To: <200306101412.18212.jrhoden@unimelb.edu.au> References: <000901c32eeb$4b15d4a0$0200000a@fireball> <200306101412.18212.jrhoden@unimelb.edu.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 10 Jun 2003 14:12:18 +1000 JacobRhoden <jrhoden@unimelb.edu.au> wrote: > On Tue, 10 Jun 2003 10:57 am, Craig Reyenga wrote: > > Perhaps all odd major numbers should be considered development > > versions. 5.3 would instead be called 6.0, to signify that it is > > ready for general > > *shudder* sounds too much like red-hat to me! Does anyone else think it's a good idea that 5.1 should have been called 5.0.1, then once 5.x goes stable, start with 5.1? That way we keep consistent in that every x.0 version is considered development/test release. > > Jacob Rhoden Phone: +61 3 8344 6102 > ITS Division Email: jrhoden@unimelb.edu.au > Melbourne University Mobile: +61 403 788 386 > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-chat-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > -- Eric Rivas <ericr@sourmilk.net>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030610005022.289b01b9.ericr>