Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 11:05:19 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: dg@root.com Cc: "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@GndRsh.aac.dev.com>, jkh@time.cdrom.com, andrsn@andrsn.stanford.edu, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CVSUP vs. SNAPS Message-ID: <199710021705.LAA02207@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 02 Oct 1997 08:44:23 PDT." <199710021544.IAA21048@implode.root.com> References: <199710021544.IAA21048@implode.root.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <199710021544.IAA21048@implode.root.com> David Greenman writes: : >How about the fact that a 2.2.2 release occured, but somthing built : >from the bits on the 2.2.0 branch report via uname that they are : >2.2-STABLE. That is going down! : : No, "2.2" refers to the branch, not to a release. I think we make that : pretty clear. This reminds me of the joke about a helicopter pilot, fog and Microsoft support. While it is true that 2.2 does refer to the branch name, it is *NOT* specific enough. The release name for the 2.2 stable branch should be the last release on that branch followed by -STABLE. I've got several systems around here that are nearly impossible to determine what rev is on them because they all say 2.2-STABLE, even though some of them are from the 2.2.0 time frame, and others are 2 hours old. If I can't tell the difference, then autoconfig scripts that use uname can't either. *PLEASE*PLEASE*PLEASE* listen to Rod. The kernels after 2.2.5-RELEASE should be called 2.2.5-STABLE. Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199710021705.LAA02207>