From owner-freebsd-stable Wed Oct 8 01:05:01 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA01377 for stable-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 01:05:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-stable) Received: from shrimp.dataplex.net (shrimp.dataplex.net [208.2.87.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA01360 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 01:04:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rkw@dataplex.net) Received: from [208.2.87.4] (user4.dataplex.net [208.2.87.4]) by shrimp.dataplex.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA15614; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 03:04:46 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: rkw@mail.dataplex.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <199710071655.JAA07589@freebie.dcfinc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 03:01:12 -0500 To: Chris Dillon From: Richard Wackerbarth Subject: Re: Fwd: CVSup release identity Cc: chad@dcfinc.com, stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk At 5:05 PM -0500 10/7/97, Chris Dillon wrote: >2.2-CURRENT? Thats a new branch to me... Unless you are speaking >hypothetically of a branch which has not yet had its first release, which >in that case, is still taken into account by the above example. NO. I am speaking posthumorously (sp?). 2.2-CURRENT was around back in the days when 2.1 was the "stable" branch and before 2.2.0 was released. >What better alphanumeric incremented counter than time itself? I agree. Encoding the time in some scheme to save a few characters is counterproductive. Use a scheme where the meaning is easy for humans. Besides, we save enough characters by dropping "-STABLE" to make up most of the difference. Richard Wackerbarth