Date: 18 Mar 97 14:42:38 -0600 From: "Richard Wackerbarth" <rkw@dataplex.net> To: "That Doug Guy" <tiller@connectnet.com> Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists Message-ID: <AF545A6F-9C36A@204.69.236.50>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Mar 18, 1997 11:04 AM, That Doug Guy <mailto:tiller@connectnet.com> wrote: > I think that perhaps the wrong approach is being considered. >First of all, if there is any renaming to be done, the -current tag has to >be discarded. When I first started learning about FreeBSD, it seemed to >me that -current would be the branch I wanted to use because it was the >most up to date. I found out later that -current really *means* >experimental. Here is what I would like to see, with the caveat that I >have absolutely no idea how it would look in a CVS tree. :-) > >For the next three months: > >2.1.x -Stable > Keep this branch as up to date as possible with security and major >bug fixes, but put a warning in the readme's that plans should be made to >upgrade to 2.2. > >2.2.x -Release > Always the last one that went out the door, maintaining the same >quality standards we have for -Release versions now, but not guaranteed >stable. > >2.2.x -Development > The latest and greatest 2.2 code. Run at your own risk, but >probably safe. I think this reflects a lack of understanding of the CVS process. within the FreeBSD tree, there are various identifiable branches, 2.1, 2.2, and the "head" branch being the ones of interest. Along any branch labels can be attached; for example - 2.2-RELEASE. It is possible to retrieve the source code by date or label and from any branch. From a practical point, 2.2-RELEASE is dead. There is a slightly newer version of the 2.2 branch which is the active point on that branch. >3.x -Experimental > Big red warning labels all over the box, just like it is now. This whole discussion started about "which mailing list to use". I think the concensus is that there needs to be an additional one to separate 2.2 from 3.x. Rather that use list names which change over time, I suggest that we simply create a list for FreeBSD-2.1, a list for FreeBSD-2.2, and a third list for the head of the development branch. As a system matures along the path that you have indicated, the conversation about it can still remain on one list for that branch because, de facto, you cannot get any younger. Further, there would clearly be one appropriate list for each branch and that list remains with the branch rather than the status which will come and go. Anyone who cannot find the correct list should probably be asking on "questions". The rest should know which verson of the system they are running. As a transition for the people who are accustomed to "stable" and "current", we can forward their input to one or more lists until they learn (which I suspect will be fairly rapidly) the better name to use.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AF545A6F-9C36A>