From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Mar 16 13:43:52 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1569837B71A; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 13:43:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bright@fw.wintelcom.net) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id f2GLhne24624; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 13:43:49 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 13:43:49 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein To: John Baldwin Cc: Chris Dillon , jkh@FreeBSD.ORG, arch@FreeBSD.ORG, sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu, Jordan Hubbard , Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: NO MORE '-BETA' Message-ID: <20010316134349.K29888@fw.wintelcom.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from jhb@FreeBSD.ORG on Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 01:39:04PM -0800 X-all-your-base: are belong to us. Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * John Baldwin [010316 13:40] wrote: > > On 16-Mar-01 Chris Dillon wrote: > > On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 10:41:24AM -0800, Jordan Hubbard wrote: > >> > > Ok, so we have reports of confusion on the mailing lists, usenet and > >> > > IRC. Jordan, where can I pick up a set those blinders you have on? > >> > > >> > Chill, Albert. I think we've already established that a) It's the > >> > newvers.sh "BETAness" that's really freaking people out and b) That > >> > you've yet to supply any practical name alternative, you're just > >> > whining about it at this point. > >> > >> I suggested "-PRERELEASE" as a more friendly alternative. > > > > I suppose we could just keep it X.Y-STABLE right up until newvers.sh > > is changed and the X.(Y+1)-RELEASE tag is laid down immediately > > afterwards... Obviously developers and others tracking -STABLE will > > already know when we're in a "BETA" stage (since they're on the > > appropriate mailing lists, or should be), others don't really need to > > be "bothered" with that fact. > > You missed the need for the Y+1 bump for ports testing prior to release. > Doing 4.2-stable -> 4.3-stable -> 4.3-release -> 4.3-stable doesn't make much > sense. Next.. He's saying 4.2-stable -> 4.3-release -> 4.3-stable -> 4.4 release ... Which makes sense. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message