FreeBSD Version Release numbers

[Doug Barton]

On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, Eric Rivas wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Jun 2003 14:12:18 +1000
> JacobRhoden <jrhoden at unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 10 Jun 2003 10:57 am, Craig Reyenga wrote:
> > > Perhaps all odd major numbers should be considered development
> > > versions. 5.3 would instead be called 6.0, to signify that it is
> > > ready for general
> >
> > *shudder* sounds too much like red-hat to me!
>
> Does anyone else think it's a good idea that 5.1 should have been called
> 5.0.1, then once 5.x goes stable, start with 5.1?

No. Historically a new branch isn't considered stable till x.2, and
minor version numbers are evil.

Doug

-- 

    This .signature sanitized for your protection