At 2:34 PM -0500 4/24/03, Frederick Bruckman wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Greywolf wrote:
>
>>  This is not how I read it, which was:
>>
>>  2.0 gets released, -current becomes 2.1A, next release is 2.1...
>>  2.1 gets released, -current becomes 2.2A, next release is 2.2....
>>
>>  This is exactly backwards from what we have now.
>
>That's the way I parsed the proposal, too, and I don't see how that's
>any clearer to users.

Actually, it's pretty obvious why it would be clearer to 
non-technical/developer users.

Basically, NetBSD peeps fall into 2 categories...(1) end 
users/non-developers/ Mac/Windows people, and (2) Unix 
geeks/developers. For the purposes of this discussion, I will totally 
ignore (2) because, as long as there is consistency, they will be 
able to grok the naming scheme into a function such that their brain 
can give an lineage to the versions (as long as we ignore the 
inconsistent 1.4.3A ;-).

As for (1), they are mostly coming from a MacOS/PeeCee background. 
And that background is, and has always been, 0.99, 1.0, 1.1d1, 1.1a1, 
1.1b1, 1.1fc1, 1.1. What is quoted above is the closet to this "norm" 
as anything that has been discussed. Also, as I use DEC AlphaStation, 
I have always disliked versions of NetBSD using the "alpha" 
designation, but it is consistent with everything else (just no other 
OS I use has a port-alpha).

Just my thoughts,
Mike
-- 
Bikers don't *DO* taglines.