From owner-freebsd-stable  Thu Oct  2 15:19:08 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA27194
          for stable-outgoing; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 15:19:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pooh.cdrom.com (pooh.cdrom.com [204.216.28.222])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA27185
          for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 15:19:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (murray@localhost) by pooh.cdrom.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA06946; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 15:17:55 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 15:17:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Murray Stokely <murray@cdrom.com>
To: Brian Haskin <haskin@ptway.com>
cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: CVSUP vs. SNAPS
In-Reply-To: <3433F5B8.B1179585@ptway.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96.971002151201.6569A-100000@pooh.cdrom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, Brian Haskin wrote:
% > > 2.2-STABLE (where we are today)
% > > 2.2.5-BETA (for while we are in BETA on the branch)
% > > 2.2.5-RELEASE (when you finally roll the puppy up)
% > > 2.2.5-STABLE (after you roll the release).
%
% Why this seems rather logical and easy to follow at least to me a
% newbie.

Why?  If we were in the 2.2.2-STABLE branch right now, it might make
some sense.  But we're not.  We're in 2.2-STABLE.  It's a development
branch, not a specific release, and the naming scheme fits the
development paradigm rather well I think.

There is no 2.2.5 branch where a -stable tree could be tracked, its
just a specific release from the 2.2 branch.  So 2.2.5-stable wouldn't
make any sense.

Murray Stokely