RTEMS Source Builder | Next (Bleeding Edge) Version Numbers are Annoying (#92)

[Gedare Bloom (@gedare)]

Gedare Bloom created an issue: https://gitlab.rtems.org/rtems/tools/rtems-source-builder/-/issues/92

Assignee: Gedare Bloom

## Summary
<!--
Please provide as much information as possible such as error messages or attaching logs
-->

The next future version of RTEMS is used to test out bleeding edge tool chains, but using the next major version introduces a few problems, such as a lot of churn at the release to relocated/rename files, and it creates confusion about what is the most recent toolchain that users should actually use. I would like to replace our current system with one that reduces this churn and confusion.

A possible idea is to use a static number that is frozen and clearly documented as not intended for public consumption. Two ideas are to use the number `0` or to use a calendar year far enough in the future that we are not going to reach it (in the lifetimes of the current maintainers and on our current release pace). I suggest the year `1989` as it has project significance (RTEMS Year 0).

## Steps to reproduce


### Pre-set options

-- 
View it on GitLab: https://gitlab.rtems.org/rtems/tools/rtems-source-builder/-/issues/92
You're receiving this email because of your account on gitlab.rtems.org.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/bugs/attachments/20250211/6e1fd526/attachment.htm>