From owner-freebsd-stable Thu Jul 20 0:33:31 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from goliath.siemens.de (goliath.siemens.de [194.138.37.131]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E4BF37BED5; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 00:33:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ust@cert.siemens.de) X-Envelope-Sender-Is: ust@cert.siemens.de (at relayer goliath.siemens.de) Received: from mail1.siemens.de (mail1.siemens.de [139.23.33.14]) by goliath.siemens.de (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e6K7X7B19975; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 09:33:08 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mars.cert.siemens.de (ust.mchp.siemens.de [139.23.201.17]) by mail1.siemens.de (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e6K7X6P08753; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 09:33:06 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from alaska.cert.siemens.de (reims.mchp.siemens.de [139.23.202.134]) by mars.cert.siemens.de (8.10.2/8.10.2/Siemens CERT [ $Revision: 1.8 ]) with ESMTP id e6K7X6437436; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 09:33:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from ust@localhost) by alaska.cert.siemens.de (8.10.2/8.10.2/alaska [ $Revision: 1.4 ]) id e6K7X5e00663; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 07:33:05 GMT Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 09:33:05 +0200 From: Udo Schweigert To: Kent Stewart Cc: Kris Kennaway , Gavin Cameron , stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: What does -RC mean? was: Re: Stable broken Message-ID: <20000720093305.A367@alaska.cert.siemens.de> References: <3976A60C.BE9DE986@urx.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.4i In-Reply-To: <3976A60C.BE9DE986@urx.com>; from kstewart@urx.com on Thu, Jul 20, 2000 at 12:11:08AM -0700 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 4.1-RC Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, Jul 20, 2000 at 00:11:08 -0700, Kent Stewart wrote: > > > Kris Kennaway wrote: > > > > On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Gavin Cameron wrote: > > > > > >From a cvsupped stable this morning I'm getting the following error in > > > /sbin/ipf > > > > Yes, and if you'd been following -stable you'd have saved yourself the > > trouble. I've committed one more patch which I hope will fix things now > > (for the record, it wasn't me who broke all this ;-) My buildworld is > > still underway, so I won't be sure for an hour or so. > > I thought the whole world was follow you all. Everytime you thought it > was fixed all of the US cvsup sites that I use hit their limit :). I > had never been rejected by cvsup7 until tonight. > This is due to the fact that the in ports tree the tag RELEASE_4_1_0 has been added and so cvsup takes much longer since each file in the ports tree has to be changed. Anyway: it is a little bit annoying that the -stable branch keeps to be broken especially since it is labeled as a "release candidate" (4.1-RC). To my understanding a "release candidate" should only be changed if serious problems are detected (and not, for example, to bring in ipfilter update to -current and -stable at the same time, without testing period in -current). I thought having a release candidate should ensure that the final release is as stable as can be. Every change to the release candidate would normally result in a restart of the testing period. Other oppinions out there? Regards -- Udo Schweigert, Siemens AG | Voice : +49 89 636 42170 ZT IK 3, Siemens CERT | Fax : +49 89 636 41166 D-81730 Muenchen / Germany | email : ust@cert.siemens.de PGP-2/5 fingerprint | D8 A5 DF 34 EC 87 E8 C6 E2 26 C4 D0 EE 80 36 B2 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message