On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 04:01:50PM -0700, Bill Studenmund wrote:
  | > Ok, I take the point about "_ALPHA" and "/alpha" raised by Ben Harris
  | > (and I don't know why I forgot about that, since I was one of the
  | > releng pushing for removing "_ALPHA" in the release cycle naming :);
  | > how about:
  | > 	3.0_CURRENT1
  | > then?  (or "2.1_CURRENT1")
  | 
  | Hmm... This is digressing, but I think something like 2.1A_CURRENT would
  | be better. It's more in line with (what I think) we are doing with _STABLE
  | now; _RELEASE/_STABLE/_CURRENT are just suffixes. The naming is similar to
  | what we have now, and "_CURRENT" makes it BLUNTLY clear it's current. :-)

I'm not convinced that "2.1A_CURRENT" is asthetically better than
"2.1_CURRENT1" or "2.1_CURRENTA" or ...   (The only point of the "1"
or "A" in the suffix is the lkm kernel rev bump).


As the other other proposals which want to go to a.b.c.d or a.b.c.d.e
version numbers; that's just getting crazy.  Ask anyone whose been
invovled in support for products with such numbers (HP-UX, Oracle) and
they'll most likely concur :)


I haven't totally discounted kre's original idea, with the odd/even
flip to make it more consistent with how many other projects do it.

(I need more time to mull over this stuff...)


Luke.