On 05/07/2014 10:20 AM, Harald Barth wrote:
"In sync" would have been nice, but as "in sync" has been problematic in the past and I don't expect that to change, I suggest to go with the last suggestion. I would call it "marketing numbers" and these should have another range so that they have clearly differing version numberings (like the 5.x example from Andrew). Or call the Windows versions 14.x this year and 15.x next year. Then we will never reach the feared OfW-13 version for sure ;-)
Would agree with the reasoning. The only real drawback from the current versioning is that the major version numbers are close enough together to imply that the UNIX version is somehow "old" or stuck on a legacy branch (compare to the similar-sounding 1.4 series that just got de-supported).. not exactly the impression we'd like to convey.
Of course, you could just wait until the Windows client has pulled ahead far enough on its own, but perhaps a single version bump would be good enough.
But overall not a major issue for us. Cheers, jan _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
