Re: Next net release will be 1.1.3

[Chris Faylor <cgf at cygnus dot com>]

On Tue, May 23, 2000 at 06:47:19AM -0700, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>--- DJ Delorie <dj@delorie.com> wrote:
>>>So it would be now big deal to use the numbering scheme 1.1.y with
>>>consecutive y for the releases and 1.1.(y+1)-YYYYMMDD for the next
>>>snapshots in between.
>>
>>I would suggest 1.1.y-YYYYMMDD.  I'd rather not even hint at a next
>>release until we're there.
>
>I disagree.  The snapshot should be incremented to the next release
>number after a release.  If you leave it the same as the release one
>could assume that all snapshots after that release were compatible with
>that release and it might not be so.

Yup.  This is sort of the way that linux does it.  I am not going to
keep the snapshots at the same revision as the net release.  *I* would
find the confusing.

Also, I don't know what people mean when they say 1.1.y-YYYYMMDD.  We
don't have enough room in the utsname field for this.  However, I have
modified uname() so that the snapshot date is reported as the release
date and an 'S' is added to the revision.

I think that Corinna was just implying that we already have everything
that has been requested, though.

cgf