From owner-freebsd-stable  Thu Oct  2 16:01:22 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA29446
          for stable-outgoing; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 16:01:22 -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 QAA29440
          for <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 16:01:16 -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 QAA25511; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 16:00:24 -0700 (PDT)
To: Murray Stokely <murray@cdrom.com>
cc: Brian Haskin <haskin@ptway.com>, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: CVSUP vs. SNAPS 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 02 Oct 1997 15:17:54 PDT."
             <Pine.NEB.3.96.971002151201.6569A-100000@pooh.cdrom.com> 
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:00:24 -0700
Message-ID: <25507.875833224@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
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.

Thanks for summarizing my position so succinctly, Murray. ;-)

					Jordan