Re: Current stable tag slip status

[Gabriel Ambuehl <gaml@xxxxxx>]

Matthew Dillon wrote:

>:Or you could follow Gentoo's lead (some other Linux distros have also
>:gone that way I think) and go with 2005.1, 2005.2 etc and then go to
>:2006.1 etc (or even 2005.4 since it's released in April?)? Version
>:numbers are pretty arbitrary anyway, so why not use something that makes
>:sense to humans?Anyway, you can't get much worse than Sun's Java
>:numbering scheme *G*
>
>    Not a bad idea though that will create a problem if/when we branch
>    and start maintaining two releases at once.
>
>  
>

How about three branches:
- DF CURRENT XXXX.Y
- DF STABLE XXXX.Y
- DF LEGACY  XXXX.Y

Whereas for running production systems it's recommended to be using
STABLE at any given point in time (which essentially means there must
*never* happen a FreeBSD 5.3).

IMHO, that's far more easy to understand than X.Y is stable, Z.Q is
current and Q.R is in maintenance mode...