Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 13:39:02 -0500 From: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> To: Murray Stokely <murray@cdrom.com> Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Fwd: CVSup release identity Message-ID: <l03110700b05eddbc3dc5@[204.69.236.50]> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96.971006112043.7865B-100000@pooh.cdrom.com> References: <l03110705b05e6d15c0b5@[208.2.87.4]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>On Mon, 6 Oct 1997, Richard Wackerbarth wrote: >% Well, I would still get rid of the "-STABLE". I would also use Zulu time >% and convert it all to a number. Thus > >Then what about -CURRENT?! -STABLE needs to stay there. No, it does not! The "current" branch is presently called "3.0". As far as distinguishing the versions of 2.2 which preceeded the initial release, whatever naming convention we use to distinguish later versions can be applied. For example, were we to have used the ctm delta numbers, as I recall, they were above 0100 when the 2.2.0 release happened. I can see the argument that designating the head of the development tree as 3.0 is premature. That designation probably should not have been applied until there was an actual development branch created. However, since it is likely that everything presently going into the tree will be included in 3.0, I don't think it hurts. Perhaps we should revisit this just before we split the next development branch. At that time we might want to apply a name to the development head which will not become obsolete. However, using "4.0" for the next year or so would also work. Richard Wackerbarth
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?l03110700b05eddbc3dc5>