> I mean, seriously, this is a ton of stuff! And it's quite a bit
 > different from 3.10 and it *does* include changes to the base image.
 > Given the amount of changes, that image really should not be called
 > 3.10 any longer; you are only creating confusion by insisting this be
 > called 3.10.

      I agree. I would call this 3.11 alpha. I don't understand Keith's 
hesitancy. If this causes us to use more minor version numbers in the 3 
series, so be it; there's no shortage. :)


-C

[1] http://netjam.org/versions

--
Craig Latta
www.netjam.org