Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 17:28:52 -0800 (PST) From: Jake Hamby <jehamby@lightside.com> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>, mrl@teleport.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: When is 2.2 Estimated to be released? Message-ID: <Pine.AUX.3.91.960306172218.27009B-100000@covina.lightside.com> In-Reply-To: <199603061914.MAA11548@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 6 Mar 1996, Terry Lambert wrote: > > Uh, what exactly would 2.2 have, then, if none of the planned major > features made it in? > > Something like that should be called 2.1.1, not 2.2.0, IMO... At least it would have the improved VM code, Paul's new cool malloc(), better Linux emulation, and a newer ports collection. Even with no other features, this is at least deserving of 2.1.5, if not 2.2.0. Also, remember that -current has been a separate branch of the tree, with many improvements stretching back to six months before 2.1.0-RELEASE! Or we could do like Microsoft and wantonly bump version numbers at will. I know, let's call it FreeBSD 4.0 to keep it in version parity with Windows 95.. ;-) Recent MS examples: Office 95 (all programs were bumped to 7.0, even though Word was 6.0 and Powerpoint was 4.0 formerly), and Visual C++ (which went from 2.2 to 4.0 to keep it in parity with MFC).. The point I'm trying to make is that version numbers are ultimately arbitrary; I think it would be foolish to bump it up to 3.0-RELEASE if we didn't add any major features, but there's nothing stopping us. 2.2-RELEASE sounds perfectly fine. ---Jake
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.AUX.3.91.960306172218.27009B-100000>