Francisco Reyes wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2005, Scott Long wrote:
Again, please don't take the abrupt switch to 6.0 to mean that 5.x is
flawed or that 6.x will also have a short lifespan. The real purpose
of the switch is nothing but positive; it'll keep us focused and prevent
us from overreaching and overextending ourselves. It's a very good
and very postive strategy.
So why have a 6.X naming convention to begin with?
Why not just stay in 5.X name wise?
I really should have given 5.3 the name of 6.0. I considered
it at the time, but decided not to for some insane reason.
Is there a thread that sheds some light on that topic?
Is the goal to have a new major branch every 2 years?
Yes. This will allow us to pace our major development projects much
better than we have in the past. Thus, a ".0" release becomes less
of a major event with lofty goals, and more of a snapshot of where
our technology is at the time. There will still be goals and major
projects, but I don't want us to go through another exercise of spending
4+ years on loosely defined goals that grow out of bounds.
Scott
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
