From owner-freebsd-stable  Thu Oct  2 09:44:15 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA07418
          for stable-outgoing; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 09:44:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from adelphi.physics.adelaide.edu.au (adelphi.physics.adelaide.edu.au [129.127.36.247])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA07401
          for <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 09:44:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bragg by adelphi.physics.adelaide.edu.au (5.65/AndrewR-930902) id AA27722; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 02:13:24 +0930
From: Kristian Kennaway <kkennawa@physics.adelaide.edu.au>
Received: by bragg; (5.65/1.1.8.2/05Aug95-0227PM)
	id AA24574; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 02:13:23 +0930
Message-Id: <9710021643.AA24574@bragg>
Subject: Re: CVSUP vs. SNAPS
To: dg@root.com
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 02:13:23 +0930 (CST)
Cc: rgrimes@GndRsh.aac.dev.com, jkh@time.cdrom.com, andrsn@andrsn.stanford.edu,
        freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <199710021500.IAA20880@implode.root.com> from "David Greenman" at Oct 2, 97 08:00:17 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>    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.

Actually, I found this very far from clear; at about the time 2.2.2 was 
released, I gained the ability to track the source tree via cvsup. I 
looked long and hard at the documentation on my system and the webpages, 
even searched the mail archives, but I could not find an obvious answer 
as to which branch to track to remain stable. It seemed to me, as others 
have noted, that  2.2.2 is "greater" than 2.2 from a numerical 
standpoint, and that hence it should be the release to track to remain 
stable with the source tree. 

I should also note that at that time the web documentation still referred 
to 2.1 as the stable branch, and 2.2 as current, which did not help to 
ease my confusion. I should HOPE this has changed by now :)

It took a question or two to the mailing list to straighten me out and 
point me to 2.2-stable as the release to track. (I think I may have been 
trying to track 2.2.2-stable or something).

So if my opinion counts for anything in this debate, it goes for the 
2.2.5-stable branch name. :)

Kris