3.0 Branch

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message < 20010214124411.A17088@disaster.jaj.com >you write:
  > 2.98 on the branch sounds good.  Or 3.0pre1, 3.0pre2, ..., 3.0pre99. :-)
In the past we've used stuff like

2.95 <date> prerelease


Which would suggest (if we follow existing conventions)

3.0 <date> prerelease

  > 3.1 on the HEAD doesn't sound so good.  It implies that we've already
  > skipped past an existing 3.0.  Once 3.0 is released, then 3.1 or 3.0x
  > would seem correct.
And if we're following conventions this would be

3.1 <date> experimental

It's not my decision, I'm just letting folks know how we've done things
in the past.
jeff