Bump mainline version number

[Alan Modra]

On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 07:19:52PM +0100, Nick Clifton wrote:
> Hi Zack,
> 
> > http://www.panix.com/~zackw/exbib/2002/June/20#1445
> > http://www.panix.com/~zackw/exbib/2002/June/30#1150

Hmm, the trouble with Zack's position is that we have people making
releases from the development branch, eg. HJ's linux binutils.  We
also have shared libs and we want version numbers to be monotonic.

> Ok, so you think that the branch that is about to be released ought to
> be version 2.14.0 correct ?  And that the current CVS sources should
> not have a version number at all, or if they do, it ought to be
> something like "2.15.0 <today's-date>".  Is that right ?
> 
> Currently the CVS sources produce a version string of "2.15.90 20030506".

Which is wrong by our current practice.  We ought to be 2.14.90 ...

-- 
Alan Modra
IBM OzLabs - Linux Technology Centre