Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 14:06:57 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@GndRsh.aac.dev.com>, andrsn@andrsn.stanford.edu, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CVSUP vs. SNAPS Message-ID: <199710022006.OAA03840@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 02 Oct 1997 10:12:09 PDT." <12048.875812329@time.cdrom.com> References: <12048.875812329@time.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <12048.875812329@time.cdrom.com> "Jordan K. Hubbard" writes: : 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 :). Ummm, yes. I understand that. I'm saying that the kernel shouldn't identify merely which branch it is on (2.2), but should also identify which major release was the most recent on that branch (2.2.5). : 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. I don't agree. I don't think it implies anything of the sort. You take the first two digits of the release, bolt RELENG_ to the front of them, and you have RELENG_2_2. That's what you ahve to do now when you upgrade from a 2.2.5-RELEASE system anyway. I fail to see the consistancy here. Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199710022006.OAA03840>