[src] cvs commit: src/sys/sys param.h src/sys/conf newvers.sh

Jon Noack noackjr at alumni.rice.edu
Wed Aug 18 00:37:43 PDT 2004

On 08/18/04 02:14, Jon Noack wrote:
> On 08/18/04 01:05, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 12:21:36AM +0000, Scott Long wrote:
>>> Index: src/sys/sys/param.h
>> [...]
>>>   * scheme is:  <major><two digit minor><0 if release branch, 
>>> otherwise 1>xx
>>>   */
>>>  #undef __FreeBSD_version
>>> -#define __FreeBSD_version 502128    /* Master, propagated to newvers */
>>> +#define __FreeBSD_version 600000    /* Master, propagated to newvers */
>>                             ^^^^^^
>> I believe this should be 600100, or are we changing the scheme
>> again?
> No, 600000 is correct.  The reason is that 600100 will be used for 
> 6-CURRENT *after* a 6.0-RELEASE.  6-CURRENT before and *including* 
> 6.0-RELEASE should follow the 6000xx scheme.  Note that this is 
> unchanged from the way 5-CURRENT and 5.0-RELEASE (which ended up being 
> 500043) were handled:
> http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/freebsd-versions.html 

This feels really Linux, but I'll throw it out anyway:
Perhaps pre-n.0 (prior to a major release, in other words) should use an 
(n-1)999xx numbering scheme so that n.0 can be n00000.  For instance, 
6-CURRENT would start at 599900.  That would allow 6.0 to be 600000. 
Numbering after the n.0 release would remain the same as it is now. 
There may be places were 600000 is hardcoded in the source (BURN_BRIDGES 
comes to mind), but that could be fixed.

I feel like I'm having my own personal bikeshed over this issue, but it 
annoys me we can't tag an n.0 release as n00000.  Oh well, it's probably 
not important enough to change so I'll go to sleep before someone can 
properly embarrass me about this.


More information about the freebsd-current mailing list