From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 6 18:54:44 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D42BE16A4CE for ; Mon, 6 Dec 2004 18:54:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp2.server.rpi.edu (smtp2.server.rpi.edu [128.113.2.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B78343D5C for ; Mon, 6 Dec 2004 18:54:44 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by smtp2.server.rpi.edu (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id iB6Isfob030009; Mon, 6 Dec 2004 13:54:41 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200412061936.35851.freebsd@redesjm.local> References: <41B40C97.7000102@yahoo.com> <200412061936.35851.freebsd@redesjm.local> Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 13:54:40 -0500 To: Jose M Rodriguez , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org From: Garance A Drosihn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-CanItPRO-Stream: default X-RPI-SA-Score: undef - spam-scanning disabled X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . canit . ca) cc: Rob Subject: Re: names of supfiles in /usr/share/examples/cvsup X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 18:54:44 -0000 At 7:36 PM +0100 12/6/04, Jose M Rodriguez wrote: >El Lunes, 6 de Diciembre de 2004 08:39, Rob escribi=F3: >> Hi, >> >> For 5.3 in /usr/share/examples/cvsup, there's: >> >> stable-supfile : for FreeBSD-stable >> standard-supfile : for FreeBSD-current >> >> I find this naming rather confusing. Why "stable" refers to STABLE, >> but "standard" refers to CURRENT ? >> >> This causes unnecessary confusion. Why not the following name >> convention: >> >> release-supfile : for FreeBSD-RELEASE > >Better security-supfile. There is just one release, things like >RELENG_5_3 are security branchs, not release branchs. Let me add to the pain by noting that RELENG_5_3 is not a security branch (the way we used to have security branches). It is now called an "errata branch", and it may see some updates which are not for security issues. Not many, and only "really really safe" ones, but it is more than just security fixes... -- Garance Alistair Drosehn =3D gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu