Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 00:34:55 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@freefall.cdrom.com> To: Mark Hittinger <bugs@ns1.win.net> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Release stability (fwd) Message-ID: <2448.798449695@freefall.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 20 Apr 95 15:32:02 EDT." <199504201932.PAA04694@ns1.win.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> In the old DEC world there was a three piece cycle that was followed > many times. A feature release followed by a robustness release. There > was also a performance release that followed the robustness release. > > The focus was shifted during each release to concentrate on the > primary goal of that release. Customers knew what to expect in > general terms. > > We seem to be trying to do all three simultaneously and I don't think > its really possible to do. This is about the best general summary of the situation I've seen yet. Yes, I think that a new/stable/fast cycle of 3 has a lot to be said for it. What would people say to us going to the following numbering scheme in support of this? <rel>.<0,1,2[,3..]>[.<snap>] Where a bump in <rel> would signal a fairly major paradigm shift of some sort, the 0 release for which would be the "features" release. It wouldn't be guaranteed not to eat you and your entire family for breakfast, it would be for the rocket jockeys who enjoy riding out on the bleeding edge. The .1 release would be the fixed version of the .0 and for the more staid sorts. The .2 release would be the final stage of evolution with things sped up and generally made to work "optimally", for whatever the value of optimum might be. If we needed snapshots, those would trail between in the "100's place" with things like 2.0.1 or 2.1.2 being valid and reasonable snapshot names (the 1st post-2.0 snapshot and 2nd post-2.1 snapshots, respectively). This would also remove Garrett's objection to date-based snapshot names. I could be more than happy with a release numbering scheme (and underlying philosophy) like this. What say the rest of you? Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2448.798449695>