Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 09:49:12 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: jehamby@lightside.com (Jake Hamby) Cc: terry@lambert.org, jkh@time.cdrom.com, mrl@teleport.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: When is 2.2 Estimated to be released? Message-ID: <199603071649.JAA14066@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.AUX.3.91.960306172218.27009B-100000@covina.lightside.com> from "Jake Hamby" at Mar 6, 96 05:28:52 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Uh, what exactly would 2.2 have, then, if none of the planned major > > features made it in? > > > > Something like that should be called 2.1.1, not 2.2.0, IMO... > > At least it would have the improved VM code, Paul's new cool malloc(), > better Linux emulation, and a newer ports collection. Even with no other > features, this is at least deserving of 2.1.5, if not 2.2.0. Also, > remember that -current has been a separate branch of the tree, with many > improvements stretching back to six months before 2.1.0-RELEASE! > > Or we could do like Microsoft and wantonly bump version numbers at will. > I know, let's call it FreeBSD 4.0 to keep it in version parity with > Windows 95.. ;-) Recent MS examples: Office 95 (all programs were > bumped to 7.0, even though Word was 6.0 and Powerpoint was 4.0 formerly), > and Visual C++ (which went from 2.2 to 4.0 to keep it in parity with > MFC).. The point I'm trying to make is that version numbers are > ultimately arbitrary; I think it would be foolish to bump it up to > 3.0-RELEASE if we didn't add any major features, but there's nothing > stopping us. 2.2-RELEASE sounds perfectly fine. I'd like to see the code differential from 2.1.0 to 2.1.5 be the same as the code differential between 2.0.5 and 2.1.0. We've already established the value of a 0.0.5 increment. What I think the improvements you noted represent is ~0.0.1 compared to the increment change for 2.1.0. I think a 2.1.5 would have to include fixes to the install process (without breaking gzip image loading). I think a 2.2.0 would need to include the PCMCIA support and the 4.4BSD-Lite2 integration, which were announced for it. Just my opinions, though... Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199603071649.JAA14066>