Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 11:09:54 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Request for a version/ revision/ release number for the whole cygwin release/ distribution Message-ID: <20041006150954.GF29289@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <4163E953 DOT 7070906 AT x-ray DOT at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4163E953.7070906@x-ray.at> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 02:47:15PM +0200, Reini Urban wrote: >Karl M schrieb: >>What about calling it B21? ":> > >As already discussed on cygwin-talk and as officially described on the >webpage, "B" stood for Beta that times (up to 1998). > >We are already stable since a few years, though we use uneven version >numbers, marking it as developer releases. > > >So we could use "S1511" (stable 1.5.11) >or "SS1511" (standalone stable 1.5.11) > - I obviously watched a lot of world war movies. > > >Go with the Redhat scheme and use "Cygwin 1.6.0". Please don't do this. Red Hat is using the even numbers. I don't know if there is already a 1.6.0 or not but there's certainly no reason to irritate the organization which is providing the network bandwidth for the cygwin release. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/