[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 From:  A dot L dot M dot Buxey at lboro dot ac dot uk
 To:  Sean Waite <swaite at sbn dash services dot com>
 Cc:  m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] monowall 1.3 beta version download??
 Date:  Wed, 1 Mar 2006 19:38:56 +0000

> If this is a branch that is Alpha, then why would it be numbered 1.3? The file version should
indicate its status. Wouldn't be better
> to have it named like this "generic-pc-0.3a1BSD6.img" that way people would know that this is
based of BSD 6, and that this branches
> state is pre-release. So what if it is a branch. Basically I am using PFsense as an example, they
branched using FreeBSD 6 and have the
> files indicated as such. 

I feel there is nothing wrong with the 1.3 tag for this release - after 
all, it is a continuation of the 1.2 capabilities and it is a beta/unstable
test release...therefore an odd number in the release revision.
this is commona nd acceptable. just because 1.3 is a greater number,
it doesnt mean its better and should be used straight away. 

> a new branch, shouldn't it be indicated as such. This way when the FreeBSD6 version is stable, it
could be released as 1.0. 

how can you have a 1.0 release when we are already on 1.2? thats just
completely wrong logic.