At 04:38 PM 9/17/2004, Christos Zoulas wrote:
>In article <20040917210706.GE1281@netbsd.org>,
>Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@netbsd.org> wrote:
> >
> >I thought after the 2.0 release we were going to move current's version so
> >that we didn't have this problem. I've forgotten what the exact fix was,
> >but I know there are a few ideas floating around. I don't remember if it
> >was we were going to 2.9 or 2.99 or we were going to 3F & friends and
> >arranging it so that NV(3.0) > NV(3F).
> >
>
>That's what I thought too, and 2.99 was luke's proposal IIRC. Can't we just
>agree on that and move forward?

Does that mean 2.99A, 2.99B, 2.99C, .... 3.0?
Or 2.99.1, 2.99.2, ... 3.0?
Or 2.99, 2.991, 2.992, ... 3.0?


-- 
Matt Thomas                     email: matt@3am-software.com
3am Software Foundry              www: http://3am-software.com/bio/matt/
Cupertino, CA              disclaimer: I avow all knowledge of this message.