On 2013-07-14 15:15, G B wrote:
I wouldn't see a problem for this aforementioned because as I mentioned, there won't likely be any new technologies added to OI, such as, ZFS encryption that would say "bump me to a 152 release."
I wonder if it is practical to complicate things with numbering in such manner, by the way? While it is true that illumos kernel was forked from Solaris codebase at the time that it reached a specific numbered milestone, they evolve in separate universes now. For the development numbering we might as well retain this, to simplify updates into newer builds for one thing, and for the odd chance that the owner of Solaris IP at some time in the future would go open-source again and merge code - so we'd bump the repo name to their milestone number at that time... But was there a release, "The Release", of OpenIndiana? Maybe the first one should be numbered "1"? Or "11" to match Oracle's marketing scheme and some similarities between the products (somewhere in that string of version minor numbers they too have the repo level like 175, BTW)? I believe it won't be a problem for packaged builds - the release/stable packages come from a different repository and can have their own version history, I think... What do you think? //Jim _______________________________________________ oi-dev mailing list [email protected] http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev
