From owner-freebsd-stable Fri Oct 10 14:05:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA08960 for stable-outgoing; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 14:05:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-stable) Received: from bob.tri-lakes.net ([207.3.81.6]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA08947 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 14:05:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cdillon@tri-lakes.net) Received: from [204.185.3.157] by bob.tri-lakes.net (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ga295600 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 16:05:29 -0500 Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.1 [p0] on FreeBSD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 16:00:04 -0000 (GMT) From: Chris Dillon To: Richard Wackerbarth Subject: Re: Fwd: CVSup release identity Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On 08-Oct-97 Richard Wackerbarth wrote: >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. Yes, of course.. the past-tense. What planet was my brain on? :-) >>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. Yes, time makes MUCH more sense to a human than some space-saving encoding scheme. >Richard Wackerbarth --- Chris Dillon --- cdillon@tri-lakes.net --- Powered by FreeBSD, the best free OS on the planet ---- (http://www.freebsd.org)