On 03/02/06 02:56 Sean Waite said the following:
> If this is a branch that is Alpha, then why would it be numbered 1.3?
well, the 1.3a3 clearly says 1.3 ALPHA release 3, and this is consistent
with m0n0wall's prior release numbering history of 1.2b1, 1.2b2 et al until
a full 1.2 release is made. thus the 1.3a series will eventually become
1.3b before being given out as 1.3 full release at some point in the future
when all bugs are ironed out.
as to why we went from 1.2 to 1.3, you should remember that somewhere mid
in the 1.2b series, manuel did experiment with moving the underlying OS to
freebsd 6 and this shortlived releases were reverted back to freebsd 4 when
the performance issues around 6.0's tcp stack emerged.
plus the dual numbering (1.2 for stable, production ready and 1.3 for alpha
test, next version releases) is consistent with the overall freebsd model
of using 6.x for the stable branch and 7.x for the current and bleeding
edge (though possibly buggy branch).
> 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
i think reading the release notes/changelogs would suffice for this.
> The average or common user would look at this file and say, hey it is a
> newer version. Although the "a" should indicate Alpha, I would assume
every public mailing list announcement of the 1.3 releases has clearly
specified that this is ALPHA and that those without freebsd savviness
shouldnt be using it. additionally, the 1.3 versions do NOT appear on
m0n0.ch/wall/'s download page. only the stable 1.2 versions appear there.
Regards, /\_/\ "All dogs go to heaven."
dinesh at alphaque dot com (0 0) http://www.alphaque.com/
| for a in past present future; do |
| for b in clients employers associates relatives neighbours pets; do |
| echo "The opinions here in no way reflect the opinions of my $a $b." |
| done; done |