Trouble Free RecepPFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF wrote:
> I notice we seem to be balking at calling the next release 1.4; we're
> calling it 1.3.3.  What comes out after that, 1.3.3.1?

1.3.4, actually :-)
 
> Just curious.  I mean, what are the criteria for bumping the minor version
> up as opposed to bumping / adding a branch ID?
> 
> We're currently at 1.3I [at least I am]; is this effectively 1.3.3 or
> is it 1.3.2++?

neither.  netbsd-current and netbsd releases are 2 different things. the
tree looks something like this:

mainline tree 
   ... -> 1.2H -> 1.3A -> 1.3B -> 1.3C -> ... -> 1.3I -> ...
              \
               \ 1.3 release branch
                \
                 1.3 -> 1.3.1 -> 1.3.2 -> 1.3.3
		
there were similar release branches for previous releases (1.1, 1.2, etc).
when the 1.2-current mainline reached a point where the "required"
features and stability were available, the mainline tree was branched and
called 1.3.  after enough pounding on the branch was done, the 1.3 branch
was released.  however, development continued on the mainline branch
during the time the 1.3 branch was being tested (this is why the first
1.3-current version was 1.3B, i think).  from time to time, when enough
bugfixes and other useful patches are accumulated against the release
branch, then a new patch release is made.  this is what 1.3.[1-3] are.  in
general, no new major functionality is included in a patch release
(sometimes drivers are backported, but something like UVM will not be).
when the powers that be have decided that the 1.3-current trunk has the
required features and stability, it will be branched for 1.4.

> ...and does anyone have any idea what we'd be looking at for a 2.x release
> as far as content goes?  I gather the changes would be pretty major for
> that. 

yes.

> Judging by what I've seen us do so far, I cannot even fathom what
> would bump us up or even if we could justify going to 2.x. 

there have been discussions on doing this (making 1.4 be 2.0), but i think
most people just have a hard time dealing with the fact that other BSD's
are at a higher major revision number.  it's pretty meaningless, except
perhaps from a marketing point of view (but really, why is OpenBSD 2.x and
better than NetBSD 1.x?).

> We've made
> some pretty major changes in the system since 1.0 came out.  We'd have
> to have the equivalent of an 8.0 earthquake through the entire system
> in order to bump the major version, I think.

not really.  there has been some mention that kernel threads/smp support
will be the needed catalyst for the 2.0 version bump.

> Again, just curiosity; please don't flame me for asking "stupid" questions
> (a truly stupid question is one to which you already know the answer)...

it doesn't sound stupid to me at all.

later.

colin wood
ender@macbsd.com
not speaking for the project in any way, just myself