On Oct 31, 10:48am, Kjetil Bernhard Thomassen wrote:
> Subject: Re: Release process (was: Re: 1.2-release/inst-12.fs...)
> > Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 09:38:57 +0000 (GMT)
> > From: Neil Hoggarth <neil.hoggarth@physiol.ox.ac.uk>
> >
> > On Wed, 30 Oct 1996, Markus Baeurle wrote:
> >
> >> ...
> >> Normally, the 1.2-beta should be the test for 1.2-release.
> >> ...
> >
> > A lot of what Markus says is very valid, however there is one major
> > misconception which I think needs clearing up. As I understand it, the
> > "beta" and "release" designations that Mark uses refer to the underlying
> > NetBSD source code base, *not* the ARM32 port specifically nor RiscBSD as
> > a package. The whole of the NetBSD system has just gone through the
> > 1.2 beta/1.2 release cycle, and what Mark puts up for FTP as the "1.2 beta
> > sets" or the "1.2 release sets" are his build of the NetBSD source code
> > releases that are so designated.
>
> Yes, that is correct.
>
> > With all due respect to Mark and his considerable accomplishments, I think
> > that it is fair to say that the NetBSD/arm32 kernel and the associated
> > "RiscBSD" installation tools, bootloader, etc, are still very much "work
> > in progress" rather than a finished product.
>
> Do we need a different version numbering scheme for RiscBSD?
>
> E.g. RiscBSD 1.00-beta/1.2-release (i.e. based on 1.2-release of NetBSD).

How about a naming scheme such that RiscBSD based on NetBSD 1.2 would have the
following designations:

NetBSD release type    RiscBSD release type    name

current                current (alpha)         1.2a-current
beta                   current                 1.2b-current
release                current                 1.2r-current
release                beta                    1.2r-beta
release                release                 1.2r-release or 1.2-release
current                release                 1.2a-release or 1.2-stable

We could also possibly add an extra minor for RiscBSD use.

Cheers

Rob

--