From owner-freebsd-stable  Thu Oct  2 15:33:08 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA28162
          for stable-outgoing; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 15:33:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA28152
          for <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 15:33:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.7/8.6.9) with ESMTP id PAA02689; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 15:31:15 -0700 (PDT)
To: "John T. Farmer" <jfarmer@sabre.goldsword.com>
cc: kkennawa@physics.adelaide.edu.au, andrsn@andrsn.stanford.edu, dg@root.com,
        freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG, jfarmer@goldsword.com,
        rgrimes@GndRsh.aac.dev.com
Subject: Re: CVSUP vs. SNAPS 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:41:37 EDT."
             <199710022041.QAA03980@sabre.goldsword.com> 
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 15:31:15 -0700
Message-ID: <2674.875831475@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> Of course , I remember the _same_ argument occuring at the 2.1.5 to
> 2.1.7 beta/release stage...  I think the fact that the argument occurs
> at _every_ major release point should point out that the terms Jordan
> wants to use are at odds with a substantial number of users.  Heck,
> having the labeling roll back like that is at odds with _everything_
> I've been taught & have taught about life-cycle management in my 17+ year
> career...

That may be, but 2 weeks before release is still the wrong time
to bring it up.  Where were y'all 6 weeks ago with this burning
issue? :-)

Again, we can discuss this until we're all blue but it won't change
the fact that I'm not going to alter my release strategy during a BETA
cycle.  I'm not deaf to the arguments that this situation is confusing
to new users needs to be revisited, I'm simply saying that now is *not*
the time to be contemplating such things nor is throwing something like
this in my lap at the last minute very much appreciated by yours truly! ;-)

> If it's the Beta release for the 2.2.5 version, then it should be
> labeled as the 2.2.5 Beta.  The branch label & tags should reflect
> that.  Effectively when you go into the beta cycle, ALL commits to
> the 2.2-STABLE tree should stop, UNLESS you can guarantee simultaneous
> commits to BOTH trees.  Because, if you insist on continuing the

I think you're confused - there would still be only one branch tag
involved here, no matter what I tweak newvers.sh to say.  We're not
creating a new branch with every release along another branch here -
that would be insane. ;-)

				Jordan