Decision time.... should NATA become the default for this release?

Oliver Fromme check+jj5pa700rspr9xfw at
Tue Jun 5 02:58:11 PDT 2007

Michael Galassi wrote:
 > Matt Dillon wrote:
 > >    I'm not firm on calling it 2.0.  I'm thinking we shouldn't call it 2.0.
 > >    I don't like going to two digits on 1.x either though, but we may have
 > >    to.
 > 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - a - b - c - d - e - f - 10 - 11...

The problem with letters A, B, C is that they are commonly
used to denote alpha, beta, (release) candidate ...

It's true that a major version bump such as 2.0 will get
special attention in the press, in newsletters, various
forums etc., and people will certainly expect that
significant milestones have been reached to warrant such
a major version jump.  Telling them that it's just co-
incidence because 2.0 follows naturally after 1.9 will
not work, they will be disappointed.  Therefore I would
also recommend to wait with 2.0 until a milestone -- such
as the new file system -- has been hammered out.
Pun intended.  ;-)

I don't like two-digit numbers that much either, but it's
probably the lesser of two (or more) evils.

Best regards

Oliver Fromme,  secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing
Dienstleistungen mit Schwerpunkt FreeBSD:

Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author
and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way.

More information about the Kernel mailing list