Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 16:57:50 +1000 From: JacobRhoden <jrhoden@unimelb.edu.au> To: Doug Barton <DougB@freebsd.org>, Eric Rivas <ericr@sourmilk.net> Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Version Release numbers Message-ID: <200306101657.50544.jrhoden@unimelb.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <20030609221151.K23396@znfgre.qbhto.arg> References: <000901c32eeb$4b15d4a0$0200000a@fireball> <20030610005022.289b01b9.ericr@sourmilk.net> <20030609221151.K23396@znfgre.qbhto.arg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 10 Jun 2003 03:24 pm, Doug Barton wrote: > > 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? hrm thats a much better idea than the previous one... > No. Historically a new branch isn't considered stable till x.2, and > minor version numbers are evil. why are minor versions evil? Jacob Rhoden Phone: +61 3 8344 6102 ITS Division Email: jrhoden@unimelb.edu.au Melbourne University Mobile: +61 403 788 386
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200306101657.50544.jrhoden>