From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Mar 16 14: 0:29 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from meow.osd.bsdi.com (meow.osd.bsdi.com [204.216.28.88]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B2C237B719 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 14:00:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from laptop.baldwin.cx (john@jhb-laptop.osd.bsdi.com [204.216.28.241]) by meow.osd.bsdi.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f2GLxPG65604; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 13:59:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.4.0 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 13:59:36 -0800 (PST) From: John Baldwin To: Garance A Drosihn Subject: Re: NO MORE '-BETA' Cc: Terry Lambert , Jordan Hubbard , arch@FreeBSD.org, Alfred Perlstein Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 16-Mar-01 Garance A Drosihn wrote: > At 12:26 PM -0800 3/16/01, John Baldwin wrote: >>On 16-Mar-01 Alfred Perlstein wrote: >>> Yes, the real problem with this is '2' (newvers.sh), there's nothing >>> wrong with using 'BETA' in the names on the ftp site. >> >>People who follow -stable should be reading -stable. > > A lot of people "should" be doing a lot of things. Maybe these users > partially follow the -stable mailing list, but happen to ignore any > message with '-beta' in the subject because "they know" they are > running the -stable branch. As I say, it is only a few people each > release, and it never takes more than a few minutes to calm them down, > but it DOES happen every release cycle. Is this in the FAQ yet? If we documented our release engineering process and put it on the website, that would eliminate most of this confusion. :) I've somewhat attempted to do this but can't seem to get the release engineer to look at it. :-P >> > ~ % uname -srm >>> FreeBSD 4.3-STABLE-RC i386 >> >>Except that it's not a real release candidate. Which is why we >>don't just use -RC the whole time. > > I do think the current "beta" period should have some specific > name, and one which doesn't imply "release-candidate". I always > thought it was odd to be calling it "beta", because (whether we > like it or not) "beta" implies something certainly less trustworthy > "stable". Actually, with the MFC spree that usually happens before a release, it is potentially less stable than before. How many times has -stable had a broken world in the 3 months between -BETA and 4.2-release, and how many times has it been broken in the last few weeks? I rest my case.. -- John Baldwin -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message