Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 06:36:21 -0400 From: Derek Taylor <det135@psu.edu> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Upcoming Releases Schedule... Message-ID: <20080923103621.GG6930@psu.edu> In-Reply-To: <20080923163556.H76357@sola.nimnet.asn.au> References: <15F15FD1-3C53-4018-8792-BC63289DC4C2@netconsonance.com> <448wtpcikb.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> <C096D142-4572-48DF-8CCA-053B41003A07@netconsonance.com> <alpine.BSF.1.10.0809191158330.40909@fledge.watson.org> <34C3D54B-C88C-4C36-B1FE-C07FC27F8CB5@netconsonance.com> <alpine.BSF.1.10.0809201102270.22368@fledge.watson.!org> <48D596AD.1070209@bgp4.net> <alpine.BSF.1.10.08092109525!60.58772@fledge.watson.org> <7FC02881-91A6-4A2B-B58F-A4D1671B9978@netconsonance.com> <20080923163556.H76357@sola.nimnet.asn.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, Ian Smith wrote: >On Mon, 22 Sep 2008, Jo Rhett wrote: > > I think you are using "last release" in a different way. "the last release" > > is always the most release release. Right now 6.3 will have support for > > longer than 6.4 will, which is the nature of the problem I raised. If you > > always supported the most recent release for 24 months then we wouldn't have > > any problem. > >Jo, it seems to be you who are trying to use "last" in an unusual way. >The "last release on a branch" is not the latest one, but the last one. >For 4.x that was .11 and for 5.x it was .5, where last means just that. Let's stop using the word "last" for the time being and instead circumvent the ambiguity via "previous" and "final", perhaps? Maybe if official documentation were updated to avoid this same ambiguity there'd be less misunderstanding too. -Derek.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080923103621.GG6930>