Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 11:39:57 +0000 From: Mark Valentine <mark@valentine.me.uk> To: ericr@sourmilk.net (Eric Rivas), freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Version Release numbers Message-ID: <200306101039.h5AAdv2b049442@dotar.thuvia.org> In-Reply-To: <mailpost.1055220631.41245@thuvia.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> From: ericr@sourmilk.net (Eric Rivas) > Date: Tue 10 Jun, 2003 > Subject: Re: FreeBSD Version Release numbers > 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? That way we keep > consistent in that every x.0 version is considered development/test > release. I may just be wierd, but I believe that a 5.0 release should be considered "stable" in that there should be no significant issues to be worked out; any problems that surface AFTER the release (despite best effort testing) should be fixable with a patch release (e.g. 5.0.1). Anything with remaining issues sufficient to warrant an "early adopter's guide" should be labelled BETA. However, given the constraints of the FreeBSD project in the current climate, and the pressure not to delay a release interminably, the release team's current approach seems a reasonable compromise. It would certainly be wrong to shoe horn 5.1's significant changes into a "patch release" (5.0.1). Cheers, Mark. -- "Tigers will do ANYTHING for a tuna fish sandwich." "We're kind of stupid that way." *munch* *munch* -- <http://www.calvinandhobbes.com>;
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200306101039.h5AAdv2b049442>