cvs commit: src/release/doc/share/sgml release.ent

[Bruce A. Mah]

If memory serves me right, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 03:04:48AM -0800, Max Khon wrote:
> > Hello!
> > 
> > On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 03:31:50PM +0600, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> > 
> > > > bmah        2003/10/26 21:37:00 PST
> > > > 
> > > >   FreeBSD src repository
> > > > 
> > > >   Modified files:        (Branch: RELENG_4_9)
> > > >     release/doc/share/sgml release.ent 
> > > >   Log:
> > > >   The next release of FreeBSD will most likely be 4.9.1, according to
> > > >   current RE plans.
> > > 
> > > I'd like to see 4.10 someday though.  4.x set a de-facto standard WRT
> > > security, robustness, and overall excellent general- (and all-) purpose
> > > operating system.  Seems like it deserves 10th incarnation.  8-)
> > 
> > there will be problems if it will be called 4.10.
> > at least with __FreeBSD_version.
> 
> Hmm, I seem to recall a conversation from where I've got an impression
> that in FreeBSD X.Y, Y can go from 0 through 9, 10, ..., 99 up to 100.
> I'll take a look closed at __FreeBSD_version, thanks.

__FreeBSD_version isn't really the issue here, although we probably
made lots of jokes about it.

The primary issue is that doing releases from two active branches is
simply a huge drain on time, particularly the portmgr@ and re@ teams,
but also for developers in general.  (Think of how many code freezes
and port freezes we've done this year and you'll sort of get the
idea.)

We're talking about doing more lightweight releases for the 4 series
(hence 4.9.1), but the details have yet to be worked out.  Until then,
it's premature to be worrying about what their version numbers will
be.

Cheers,

Bruce.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-src/attachments/20031027/116341b5/attachment.bin