On Wednesday 01 October 2003 13:05, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 09:16:19AM -0700, netbsd99@sudog.com wrote:
> > I'm shocked. We're not going to go with version number 1.7?
> >
> > I always like the fact that we were still at version 1.6 while the
> > rest of the world was moving on towards version 9.8 or 12.3 so it'd
> > look good to the unwashed masses.
>
> The issue here is that with our current version numbering scheme:
> x.y.z, y is bumped for major releases and z for minor, bug-fix
> release. So x is never bumped, and will say at 1 forever. So just
> drop x, and start using 2 digit version numbers :)

But, but.. I thought the fact we were still at 1.x.x was a simple 
against-the-grain statement making light of the fact that everyone and 
their dog bumps their major version numbers five or six times a year? I 
thought it was a great nose-thumbing, personally. Otherwise we'd be at 
6.2 or so right now. Just feels wrong.

I think if MP and SA can be forced into the stable (ha ha) that would 
justify the move to 2.x.x, but let's still have the three version 
numbers, I say. :)

If it's bound to be 2.x, near as I can tell the following major 
functionality has been added/modified:

1. Semi-functional MP
2. Mostly functional scheduler activations
3. Updated compiler

Any other major changes? Are #1 and #2 in a state to be released as 
stable? I've been reading some messages suggesting that there are 
certain hard problems that won't be solved anytime soon without 
significant effort on the part of Some Brave Soul Out There.

How about a state-of-the-kernel address for those of us who don't follow 
it close enough to be aware of the more significant modifications?

:-)