On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 02:14:56AM -0500, Jon Noack wrote: > On 08/18/04 01:05, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > >On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 12:21:36AM +0000, Scott Long wrote: > >>Index: src/sys/sys/param.h > > > >[...] > > > >> * scheme is: <major><two digit minor><0 if release branch, otherwise > >> 1>xx > >> */ > >> #undef __FreeBSD_version > >>-#define __FreeBSD_version 502128 /* Master, propagated to newvers */ > >>+#define __FreeBSD_version 600000 /* Master, propagated to newvers */ > > ^^^^^^ > >I believe this should be 600100, or are we changing the scheme > >again? > > No, 600000 is correct. The reason is that 600100 will be used for > 6-CURRENT *after* a 6.0-RELEASE. 6-CURRENT before and *including* > 6.0-RELEASE should follow the 6000xx scheme. Note that this is > unchanged from the way 5-CURRENT and 5.0-RELEASE (which ended up being > 500043) were handled: > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/freebsd-versions.html > You're right. I was confused by a misleading comment in <sys/param.h>: scheme is: <major><two digit minor><0 if release branch, otherwise 1>xx This should actually read: scheme is: <major><two digit minor>Rxx R is 0 if release branch or x.0-CURRENT before RELENG_x_0 is created, otherwise 1 Scott, would this be an appropriate time now to discuss my proposals to the release naming, and what would be an appropriate forum then? Cheers, -- Ruslan Ermilov ru_at_FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:06 UTC