On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 20:48:25 +0100 Dave wrote: DS> RS> Actually, for branches, I agree that (a) is reasonable. However, for DS> RS> main, I like (b) better. eg, right now I see main as "what will be DS> RS> 5.2", DS> RS> not "what was 5.1 + changes" (that would be v5-1-patches). DS> DS> OK - fair comment. DS> I'm not totally happy with "5.2-less-a-bit" DS> but you're correct that "5.1+changes" isn't right either.
I think I actually proposed "pre-5.2". Or we could disassociate with a release completely, and just use "cvs-main", though at that point more detail really becomes necessary. DS> I think we need some input on this one.... Agreed... -- Robert Story; NET-SNMP Junkie <http://www.net-snmp.org/> <irc://irc.freenode.net/#net-snmp> Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum=net-snmp-coders> You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by Black Hat Briefings & Training. Attend Black Hat Briefings & Training, Las Vegas July 24-29 - digital self defense, top technical experts, no vendor pitches, unmatched networking opportunities. Visit www.blackhat.com _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
