Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 00:02:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Francisco Reyes <lists@natserv.com> To: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> Cc: Mike Jakubik <mikej@rogers.com>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Lifetime of FreeBSD branches Message-ID: <20050526235805.N5798@zoraida.natserv.net> In-Reply-To: <42937D06.1070309@samsco.org> References: <3248.172.16.0.199.1116876092.squirrel@172.16.0.1> <42937D06.1070309@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 24 May 2005, Scott Long wrote: > Again, please don't take the abrupt switch to 6.0 to mean that 5.x is > flawed or that 6.x will also have a short lifespan. The real purpose > of the switch is nothing but positive; it'll keep us focused and prevent > us from overreaching and overextending ourselves. It's a very good > and very postive strategy. So why have a 6.X naming convention to begin with? Why not just stay in 5.X name wise? Is there a thread that sheds some light on that topic? Is the goal to have a new major branch every 2 years?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050526235805.N5798>