Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 19:59:38 -0600 From: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> To: Matt Behrens <matt@zigg.com> Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 2.2.5-stable is now in BETA test. Message-ID: <l03130301b12a4c1aafce@[208.2.87.4]> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980309202053.18991B-100000@megaweapon.zigg.com> References: <199803100031.RAA08173@freebie.dcfinc.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 7:23 PM -0600 3/9/98, Matt Behrens wrote: >On Mon, 9 Mar 1998, Chad R. Larson wrote: > >> Ummm... I probably won't be the only one who asks, "Should that subject >> line reference 2.2.6? > >It's 2.2.5-STABLE until 3.0 moves into STABLE. 2.2.6-RELEASE, sure! >2.2.6-BETA, maybe. But not 2.2.6-STABLE. (: The status of the 2.2 branch is not a function of the status of the 3.0 branch. 2.1 is still a "STABLE" branch. Frankly, I wish that people would think of "DEVELOPMENT", "ALPHA", "BETA", "STABLE", etc. as descriptions of the state of a development tree rather than the name of it. Once a branch reaches "stability", is SHOULD remain that way. Unfortunately, some enhancements/corrections have the undesirable effect of temporarily destablizing things. However, that is a risk that you take in grabbing the head of the branch rather than some point that has received enough testing to validate its stability. In particular, we are now in a beta test phase anticipating the 2.2.6 release. mkdir FreeBSD ; cd FreeBSD mkdir FreeBSD-2.1 populate it mkdir FreeBSD-2.2 populate it mkdir FreeBSD-3.0 populate it ln -s FreeBSD-2.2 FreeBSD-STABLE ln -s FreeBSD-3.0 FreeBSD-DEVELOPMENT ln -s FreeBSD-2.2 FreeBSD-2.2.6-BETA Richard Wackerbarth To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?l03130301b12a4c1aafce>