From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Jun  9 22:24:21 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 A3A5437B401
	for <freebsd-chat@freebsd.org>; Mon,  9 Jun 2003 22:24:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sccrmhc13.attbi.com (sccrmhc13.attbi.com [204.127.202.64])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 061F343F85
	for <freebsd-chat@freebsd.org>; Mon,  9 Jun 2003 22:24:21 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from DougB@freebsd.org)
Received: from master.dougb.net
	(12-234-22-23.client.attbi.com[12.234.22.23](untrusted sender))
	by attbi.com (sccrmhc13) with SMTP
	id <20030610052414016001kuh2e>; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 05:24:15 +0000
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 22:24:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org>
To: Eric Rivas <ericr@sourmilk.net>
In-Reply-To: <20030610005022.289b01b9.ericr@sourmilk.net>
Message-ID: <20030609221151.K23396@znfgre.qbhto.arg>
References: <000901c32eeb$4b15d4a0$0200000a@fireball>
	<20030610005022.289b01b9.ericr@sourmilk.net>
Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/
X-message-flag: Outlook -- Not just for spreading viruses anymore!
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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
	<freebsd-chat.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat>,
	<mailto:freebsd-chat-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-chat>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-chat@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-chat-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat>,
	<mailto:freebsd-chat-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 05:24:21 -0000

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