Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 08:00:17 -0700 From: David Greenman <dg@root.com> To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@GndRsh.aac.dev.com> Cc: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard), andrsn@andrsn.stanford.edu, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: CVSUP vs. SNAPS Message-ID: <199710021500.IAA20880@implode.root.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 02 Oct 1997 06:58:03 PDT." <199710021358.GAA28556@GndRsh.aac.dev.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>2.2-STABLE (where we are today) >2.2.5-BETA (for while we are in BETA on the branch) >2.2.5-RELEASE (when you finally roll the puppy up) >2.2.5-STABLE (after you roll the release). > >Going DOWN in version numbers is not something I would call good >release engineering/customer relations work. If you go back to >2.2-STABLE I have know way to know that the person has something >before the 2.2.5 RELEASE point. > >You did this in the 2.1 branch when I proded you to change the >word ``RELEASE'' to ``STABLE'', but your commit also changed >2.1.5 back to 2.1, _decreasing_ the version number, again I >iterate, version numbers should never decrease! The problem you're having is that the "2.2" release is actually called 2.2.0 (that's what the tag is in the repository), so 2.2.5 is not going down. We should perhaps make this more clear in the product literature, but I really don't think that most people are confused over this issue. -DG David Greenman Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199710021500.IAA20880>