Date: Sun, 18 Dec 1994 23:55:52 -0800 From: David Greenman <davidg@Root.COM> To: Stephen McKay <syssgm@devetir.qld.gov.au> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Don't scream.. Message-ID: <199412190755.XAA00173@corbin.Root.COM> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 19 Dec 94 16:45:55 %2B1000." <199412190645.QAA21561@orion.devetir.qld.gov.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>Being a non-optimist I am surprised that a 2.0.5 based on -current is being >considered. I would expect that a 2.0.1 (note the small minor revision >implying only tiny changes) would be rolled consisting of 2.0 plus only We refered to 2.0-Alpha as 2.0.1 and 2.0-Beta as 2.0.2...so the best we could do would be a 2.0.3...but this might imply 2.0-Release, so perhaps 2.0.4. Since we *are* going to snapshot -current (there really is no other choice - some of the fixes are too extensive to back-port to 2.0R), and since this release will be halfway between 2.0 and 2.1, I think 2.0.5 is appropriate. >A number of things have already changed to make my 2.0 network binaries >not work with the -current kernel. What does this have to do with anything? The 2.0.5 network binaries work with a 2.0.5 kernel, and 2.0.5 will be a complete release...so what's the problem? >I realise that I may be too late in this instance, but you can take it as >read for next time! Actually, it's still not certain if 2.0.5 will happen at all...but if it is possible, I'm certainly behind it. -DG
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199412190755.XAA00173>