Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>, <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:05:48 -0500
Message-Id: <200002291505.KAA23460@envy.delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: earnie_boyd AT yahoo DOT com
CC: cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
In-reply-to: <20000229134446.3604.qmail@web116.yahoomail.com> (message from
	Earnie Boyd on Tue, 29 Feb 2000 05:44:46 -0800 (PST))
Subject: Re: Version Number revisited
References:  <20000229134446 DOT 3604 DOT qmail AT web116 DOT yahoomail DOT com>


> Some time ago it was mentioned that the next net release would possibly be
> versioned as 1.1.0, using an odd number for the minor release number for net
> releases and the even number minor release number for the retail releases.
> 
> Is this planned for this release?  I've noticed that uname now gives the 1.1.0
> version and not B21.  This will give the product more stamina because it'll be
> no longer considered "beta".

That was still the case last time Chris and I discussed it, and I see
no reason (short of marketing fiat) to change it.  We just have to be
careful to make sure people realize that a higher middle number
doesn't always mean a more stable release, due to the minimal testing
of net releases.

The three-number version number will add some sanity to the version
numbering issues, too.