From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 14 14:01:42 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E8561065696 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:01:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from andreast-list@fgznet.ch) Received: from smtp.fgznet.ch (mail.fgznet.ch [81.92.96.47]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B5C98FC6B for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:01:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from deuterium.andreas.nets ([91.190.8.131]) by smtp.fgznet.ch (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit_SMTPAUTH) with ESMTP id n7EE1ceo057756; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 16:01:39 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from andreast-list@fgznet.ch) Message-ID: <4A856E42.90900@fgznet.ch> Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 16:01:38 +0200 From: Andreas Tobler User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Macintosh/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Watson References: <4A847AA5.1030701@fgznet.ch> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 81.92.96.47 Cc: freebsd-current Subject: Re: 8.0-stable/releng? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:01:42 -0000 Robert Watson wrote: > On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Andreas Tobler wrote: > >> for the record, am I correct that the upcoming 8.0 branch is like this: >> >> svn ls svn://svn.freebsd.org/base/stable/ .. 8/ ? >> >> And not under 'releng'? >> >> I'm a bit confused about naming conventions, releng vs. stable. I have no >> problem with either, but which one is the one to be used for BETA-3/RC? >> >> Is head becoming 9.0 soon? > > Existing documentation about branch naming (-CURRENT, -STABLE, -RELEASE, etc) > remains essentially valid. The primary change of note is that in Subversion, > we now include "stable" in the branch name for -STABLE branches, rather than > using "releng" for that as well. The following should apply: > > base/head - -CURRENT > base/stable/X - X-STABLE branches > base/releng/X.Y - X.Y release engineering branches > base/release/X.Y.Z - X.Y.Z release tag > > stable/8 has been created, but neither releng/8.0 nor release/8.0.0 have been > created. > > Because the release process involves some non-atomic windows, things are > currently potentially confusing -- uname -a on head and stable/8 both report > BETA2, and the two branches are being kept in lock-step in the lead-up to > BETA3, after which point the brannches will diverge. I'm not quite sure when > head will start calling itself 9-CURRENT, but probably pretty soon. Thank you Robert! That was the thing/explanation I was looking for. Andreas