Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 10:12:09 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> Cc: "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@GndRsh.aac.dev.com>, andrsn@andrsn.stanford.edu, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: CVSUP vs. SNAPS Message-ID: <12048.875812329@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 02 Oct 1997 09:09:01 MDT." <199710021509.JAA00956@harmony.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
But it results from an essential confusion as to what "2.2" means. 2.2 is the branch ID, it's not 2.2.0 as Rod seems to see it and hence there's no "decrease" in the release number (if you had to think of it strictly numerically then 2.2 would be equivalent to 2.2.x, where x = infinity :). To put it another way, we have 3 branches right now: 2.1 AKA 2.1-stable 2.2 AKA 2.2-stable 3.0 AKA 3.0-current And I would expect all branches to have their BRANCH variable in /sys/conf/newvers.sh set accordingly except for those brief periods when an actual release was going out, at which point it would briefly transition to RELEASE. Suddenly inventing 2.2.5-stable would be a tragic mistake since it leads in turn to the suggestion that there's a RELENG_2_2_5 branch tag to go with it which, of course, there is not. Jordan > In message <199710021358.GAA28556@GndRsh.aac.dev.com> "Rodney W. Grimes" writ es: > : You did this in the 2.1 branch when I proded you to change the > : word ``RELEASE'' to ``STABLE'', but your commit also changed > : 2.1.5 back to 2.1, _decreasing_ the version number, again I > : iterate, version numbers should never decrease! > > Let me stand up and lend my 100% whole-hearted support to Rod's > request. I think it is an excellent idea. > > Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?12048.875812329>