On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Eric Auer <e.a...@jpberlin.de> wrote:
> The current numbering is that "stable plus patches" will be
> 2038 while unstable is 2037 (next unstable will be 2039)...
> Both branches are based on kernel 2035 and for a while they
> even both used 2035 as version number(s), unfortunately.
> While it does not have a SF file release yet, 2038 combines
> stable 2036 kernel with patches that fix bugs, increase the
> stability or add small, non-experimental features. It could
> be released at any time if necessary, but there are some doc
> updates and small patches what would suit it well :-).

So we've moved to alternating between "stable" and "unstable"?

2036(stable), 2037(unstable), 2038(stable), 2039(unstable), ...

This is not a good practice. Not even the Linux kernel follows the
"odd numbers are 'devel', and even numbers are stable" version scheme.

A free / open source software project needs to make frequent releases,
with incremental improvements. We should not try to hold a release
(like we seem to be doing with 2038.) Release 2038 now, and put those
other "doc updates and small patches" in a 2039 release.


Crystal Reports &#45; New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial
Check out the new simplified licensign option that enables unlimited
royalty&#45;free distribution of the report engine for externally facing 
server and web deployment.
Freedos-user mailing list

Reply via email to