Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 22:24:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> To: Eric Rivas <ericr@sourmilk.net> Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Version Release numbers Message-ID: <20030609221151.K23396@znfgre.qbhto.arg> In-Reply-To: <20030610005022.289b01b9.ericr@sourmilk.net> References: <000901c32eeb$4b15d4a0$0200000a@fireball> <20030610005022.289b01b9.ericr@sourmilk.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, Eric Rivas wrote:
> 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?
No. Historically a new branch isn't considered stable till x.2, and
minor version numbers are evil.
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030609221151.K23396>